Report shows confusion on gun dispute

(Mods, I know the original story was discussed, but this is alot of new information to bury at the bottom of some old thread, so I respectfully request it be allowed to stand in its own thread)


What in the hell is going on with this story?

PA has no gun registry, yet police are taking possession of lawfully owned property without any probable cause whatsoever, and checking the serial numbers of said property against a "database" of who knows what?

Anyone from PA that can shed some light on this "database"? I was under the impression that when someone got a concealed carry license, that it was the person who was getting the license, and that it contained no information about any firearms at all.

Mr. Kolcharno said that might have been avoided had he known Mr. Banks was a federal firearms dealer, exempt from carrying a license for a concealed gun. No charges were filed against Mr. Banks.

If he would otherwise be required to carry a permit in order to lawfully carry a concealed firearm, and is claiming an exemption, is there not some onus on him to establish the existence of that exemption?

If he claims to hold a licence as a firearms dealer that exempts him from the permit requirement, and the police are able to establish that a person with the name he claims is his does in fact have a licence as a firearms dealer, should the police take his word that he is that person?

Is it reasonable for a person with a firearms dealer licence who is carrying a concealed firearm to refuse to provide police with sufficient identification to enable them to determine that he his who he says he is and is thus in fact exempted from the permit requirement?

Just wondering.

"If he would otherwise be required to carry a permit in order to lawfully carry a concealed firearm, and is claiming an exemption, is there not some onus on him to establish the existence of that exemption?"

"Is it reasonable for a person with a firearms dealer licence who is carrying a concealed firearm to refuse to provide police with sufficient identification to enable them to determine that he his who he says he is and is thus in fact exempted from the permit requirement?"

It is most certainly reasonable if they have no grounds for asking in the first place, as is the context of the event.

The police had no basis for believing a crime was being committed, therefore no probable cause to ask such questions in the first place. They waltzed right in and without any justification whatsoever interupted people who were peaceably eating dinner.

Legally speaking, what they did was the equivalent of recieving a call that someone was <insert legal activity here> and giving the person doing said activity the 5th degree over it.

On edit: And thats putting it mildly.

is to enforce the law, not their personal preferences or those of other citizens.

Officers who with no good-faith legal basis to think their actions justified, enforce their personal preferences are criminals. Punishment should be swift and sure.

The Constitution, being the supreme law, should get supreme deference. Blatantly violating it under color of law should be a serious felony. The officers who herded protester away from Bush's parade route based on the content of their t-shirts, the national guardsmen who confiscated private property in New Orleans at gunpoint, and these characters should be held in adjoining cells. The people who issued the illegal orders should be in underground cells beneath them.

If these officers plead that they believed in good faith that a concealed carry permit is required to carry openly (without basis in written law), they should be dismissed from the force for lack of intelligence. That's like asking for your driver's license because you're jogging.

Oh, and isn't holding an innocent person against their will--a person not even suspected of violating the law--illegal? Isn't the technical term kidnapping? Isn't "under color of law" typically an aggravating factor?

Depending on the subject matter, legality, consistency, and logic go out the window.

What is it thats so often said and applied to us peons?

IGNORANCE OF THE LAW IS NO EXCUSE.

Goose, meet gander.