« Amicus brief in NYSRPA v. NYC | Main | Murder-free counties »
PA Supreme Court: walking while armed is not a basis for stop and frisk
A ruling this morning in Commonwealth v. Hicks. Police were informed that a man was carrying a concealed handgun (it turns out he had a permit to do so), showed up, restrained him and searched him and his car. He was charged with and convicted of DUI and possession of marihuana, based on the stop and search. The court overturned his conviction, finding that the stop and search violated the Fourth Amendment.
"Although the carrying of a concealed firearm is unlawful for a person statutorily prohibited from firearm ownership or for a person not licensed to do so, see 18 Pa.C.S. ยงยง 6105-06, there is no way to ascertain an individual's licensing status, or status as a prohibited person, merely by his outward appearance. As a matter of law and common sense, a police officer observing an unknown individual can no more identify whether that individual has a license in his wallet than discern whether he is a criminal. Unless a police officer has prior knowledge that a specific individual is not permitted to carry a concealed firearm, and absent articulable facts supporting reasonable simply is no justification for the conclusion that the mere possession of a firearm, where it lawfully may be carried, is alone suggestive of criminal activity."
The second amendment makes no statement about how one carries. The judges who claim the 2nd doesn't give one a right to carry concealed are too ignorant to be on the benchh since they can't read plain English and understand that the 2nd grants NOTHING. The 2nd enumerates a Right that pre-exists the Constitution. The authority of keeping and bearing lies with the individual. Under natural law, the core of our system, the individual holds the sole authority to determine how to carry and there is no "compelling governmental interest". Because of the incorrect 1833 decision in Barron, the states have gotten away with illegal/unconstitutional laws on Arms, not just firearms but all arms including knives, nun-chucks, etc.
It is appalling that judges pretend to be so smart that they can read between the lines instead of judges following the law. We the People are the bosses and if we disagree with the judiciary, it is as Blackstone said, that the highest authority on Earth is society NOT magistrates who are loaned some limited powers.
Good for this judge making the statement made BUT the truth is governments do not have the legitimate authority to limit what Arms we have or how we carry them. Claims to the contrary are lies pulled out the backsides of folks who don't grasp their own legitimate limitations.