Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.7
Site Design by Sekimori

« Amicus brief in NYSRPA v. NYC | Main | Murder-free counties »

PA Supreme Court: walking while armed is not a basis for stop and frisk

Posted by David Hardy · 31 May 2019 04:24 PM

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."

1 Comment | Leave a comment

Fwb | June 4, 2019 7:52 AM | Reply

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.

Leave a comment