Reporter caught taking gun into Allegheny Co. courthouse

[HiredGoon]

Reporter accused of taking gun into courthouse
Monday, June 16, 2008
By Jim McKinnon and Daniel Mallow, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

A radio reporter was arrested this morning and accused of trying to take a loaded handgun into the Allegheny County Courthouse.

The county sheriff's office said KDKA reporter Rob Milford was stopped at 9:25 a.m. after a .38 caliber snub-nosed revolver was found in his briefcase at a courthouse screening station.

He was to be arraigned today on charges of carrying a firearm without a license and entering a court facility with a firearm.

"It's very early and we're looking into it," said KDKA program director Marshall Adams. "We'll be conducting a full investigation."

Mr. Milford was at the courthouse to cover the trial of the East End rapist, Mr. Adams said, and he emphasized that there was no undercover effort on the part of the radio station to test courtroom security with a concealed weapon.

It was the second incident in a week in which a person with a loaded gun was stopped at the courthouse. On Thursday, 22-year-old Shadina Garner, who was to be a witness in a case, was stopped with a .32 caliber handgun in her purse.

Mr. Milford, a morning general assignment reporter, arrived at KDKA in April 2006 after working for CBS Radio News and Fox News Radio. He reported from the Iraq war twice, once when he was embedded during the initial invasion in 2003.

[knighthawk06699]

Wow so the rash of dumbass happenings continue. These people don't seem to get the fact they are making the rest of us look bad.

[pex]

Originally Posted by knighthawk06699

Wow so the rash of dumbass happenings continue. These people don't seem to get the fact they are making the rest of us look bad.

I see it as a rash of government abuse. I doubt the screening authority is going to dispute his firearm was made of materials readily detectable by x-ray or by metal detector.

Either the authority is placing their checkpoint in an area that is not toward the goodwill of 18PACS913 (that is, someone accidentally forgot to write in statute that you can't put the checking station inside the middle of courtroom, let alone where it is as 'court facility' is defined) and they need to move it, or they are charging people for committing crimes that most certainly did not occur and cannot be construed in any way to have occurred.

Can anyone in Pittsburgh right now suggest to us where this checkpoint might be located, and whether it is within a 'court facility'?

This is getting ridiculous. I sent an e-mail inquiry through either the Courthouse or the Court of Common Pleas as somewhere to start.

[Pa. Patriot]

pex wrote:

I see it as a rash of government abuse. I doubt the screening authority is going to dispute his firearm was made of materials readily detectable by x-ray or by metal detector.

Either the authority is placing their checkpoint in an area that is not toward the goodwill of 18PACS913 (that is, someone accidentally forgot to write in statute that you can't put the checking station inside the middle of courtroom, let alone where it is as 'court facility' is defined) and they need to move it, or they are charging people for committing crimes that most certainly did not occur and cannot be construed in any way to have occurred.

Can anyone in Pittsburgh right now suggest to us where this checkpoint might be located, and whether it is within a 'court facility'?

I disagree.

"He was to be arraigned today on charges of carrying a firearm without a license"

Per 6106, carrying concealed is illegal, unless one meets one of the exceptions in paragraph (b) of 6106.


As for 18PACS913 I think your argument on placement of the checkpoints has been reviewed prior, I just cant remember the ref.
The screening is in place to prevent carrying into a court facility. By not declaring the firearm you have violated 913. If you simply forgot, maybe that defense will work in court but you can bet it does go to court.

In the situation of this news story, the fellow was apparently carrying concealed without being exempted (like by having an LTCF) AND didn't declare the firearm.

As much as I dislike the laws forbidding carry (6106) in general, my opinion is that your statement of this being an example of "a rash of government abuse" is unfounded.

Now if the fellow HAS an LTCF and simply forgot to have it on his person, as he similarly forgot to declare his firearm, then maybe he will prevail in court. But it is still not a gov abuse when they enforce the law as it is written. That is ecaxtly what they are supposed to do

$.02

[archon]

I doubt she would have checked it seeing that she was also charged with carrying without a license. I believe the situation was also true for the incident last week.

[knighthawk06699]

Originally Posted by Pa. Patriot

pex wrote:



I disagree.



Per 6106, carrying concealed is illegal, unless one meets one of the exceptions in paragraph (b) of 6106.


As for 18PACS913 I think your argument on placement of the checkpoints has been reviewed prior, I just cant remember the ref.
The screening is in place to prevent carrying into a court facility. By not declaring the firearm you have violated 913. If you simply forgot, maybe that defense will work in court but you can bet it does go to court.

In the situation of this news story, the fellow was apparently carrying concealed without being exempted (like by having an LTCF) AND didn't declare the firearm.

As much as I dislike the laws forbidding carry (6106) in general, my opinion is that your statement of this being an example of "a rash of government abuse" is unfounded.

Now if the fellow HAS an LTCF and simply forgot to have it on his person, as he similarly forgot to declare his firearm, then maybe he will prevail in court. But it is still not a gov abuse when they enforce the law as it is written. That is ecaxtly what they are supposed to do

$.02

Could not agree more. There are laws emplace and we know what they are. We as law abiding citizens follow these laws whether or not we feel they are right or not. They are laws and that is what we do as law abiding citizens.

These people who go around breaking the law, and just doing very unsmart things in fact does make the rest of us look bad. G

[pex]

I can't fathom how some number of you would tell me that 'observing a concealed weapon' out on the field is any different than as happens here:

that simple observing a concealed weapons does not meet the standard required to consider it a violation of the law.

Further, while I am not sure if anyone contends this, I do not see the failure to clear the checkpoint as a 913 violation committed or about to be committed, which might then allow some sort of lawful demand for an LTCF.

Maybe everyone changed their minds on what RAS and PC are when it comes to firearms since policemedic brought forth Robinson. Otherwise, I have no idea what the source of this suddenly contrary nature is.

There are laws emplace and we know what they are.

I would suggest 'we' know no such thing.

[knighthawk06699]

Originally Posted by pex

I can't fathom how some number of you would tell me that 'observing a concealed weapon' out on the field is any different than as happens here:

that simple observing a concealed weapons does not meet the standard required to consider it a violation of the law.

Further, while I am not sure if anyone contends this, I do not see the failure to clear the checkpoint as a 913 violation committed or about to be committed, which might then allow some sort of lawful demand for an LTCF.

Maybe everyone changed their minds on what RAS and PC are when it comes to firearms since policemedic brought forth Robinson. Otherwise, I have no idea what the source of this suddenly contrary nature is.

Ok first he put it through the xray machine, first huge mistake. I know as a LEO in that situation I would take it as you are trying to slip that gun past me and get it into the court house. Which is a felony right there. You put it on the xray machine it means it is ready to go into the courthouse as is nothing in there that is prohibited.

The very first thing he should have done was walk in and check in the handgun!!!! Oh wait, that is right he couldn't because he does not have a permit to carry a concealed handgun!!!! Hmm. that sounds like two felonies in about 30 seconds if you ask me. You ask me how does that make the rest of us law abiding gun owners/carriers look bad?

[headcase]

Originally Posted by pex

I can't fathom how some number of you would tell me that 'observing a concealed weapon' out on the field is any different than as happens here:

that simple observing a concealed weapons does not meet the standard required to consider it a violation of the law.

Further, while I am not sure if anyone contends this, I do not see the failure to clear the checkpoint as a 913 violation committed or about to be committed, which might then allow some sort of lawful demand for an LTCF.

Maybe everyone changed their minds on what RAS and PC are when it comes to firearms since policemedic brought forth Robinson. Otherwise, I have no idea what the source of this suddenly contrary nature is.



I would suggest 'we' know no such thing.

Pexxy my friend, I believe the difference here is these people were trying to take a firearm into a prohibited place, a crime.

[Pa. Patriot]

Originally Posted by pex

I can't fathom how some number of you would tell me that 'observing a concealed weapon' out on the field is any different than as happens here:

that simple observing a concealed weapons does not meet the standard required to consider it a violation of the law.

I can't fathom how you think they are the same, or even related...

Originally Posted by pex

Maybe everyone changed their minds on what RAS and PC are when it comes to firearms since policemedic brought forth Robinson. Otherwise, I have no idea what the source of this suddenly contrary nature is.

No, the two situations are exclusive. The court is off limits by law. The checkpoint is clearly marked and disclosed no weapons beyond this point. By failing to declare a firearm you are now in violation of taking a firearm in the protected area (or attempting to if it gets caught)

The difference between this (carrying into a prohibited area) and carrying on the street is quite obvious.

I would suggest 'we' know no such thing.[/quote]