Gun incident at Old Country Buffet leaves lots of questions
A few days ago, several people walked into the Old Country Buffet in Dickson City openly carrying weapons, various kinds of pistols in particular. From what I can gather, there was actually a group of them celebrating their right to openly carry firearms. Police were called and the incident led to some of those people being removed from the establishment, and having their guns removed, because they didn't have their permits with them. They later returned to the restaurant.
My only question, aside from the fact that the law provides that a person with a permit may carry a gun in the open, at least from what I understand of the gun laws, is why would anyone want to walk into a family restaurant on Mother's Day with a gun exposed? Allowed or not, my view of that is that it's poor judgment. Are the kids in the place not supposed to be intimidated by the sight of a group of men carrying guns openly? It's a guy thing, apparently, that lends itself to how some men think when their identities are suffering from some other form of abandonement. No toys as kids? I don't know, but grouping together with guns showing, and entering a family restaurant is way beyond acceptable conduct for any normal man, and I stress the word normal.
I'm all for the right to bear arms, but for the immature men out there who don't know any better, I can guarantee you that you can certainly have breakfast in this country without feeling threatened by people eating bacon and eggs.
It's my understanding that unless your an office of the law, you cannot walk around with your gun exposed.
It's my understanding that after the Black Panthers followed police around with their guns exposed-- making sure the police did not engage in brutality--that a law was passed in the 1960s that forced gun owners to conceal their weapon.
__________________ Organized crime or Mafia. I dont know what that is to tell you the truth. -- Louis DeNaples.
Those men who have to carry a gun all the time are usually displaying the only kind of real firepower they have. They're duds otherwise in every sense of the word. I think I'd put my own husband down if he ever pulled that stunt on me in public. I'd be embarrassed beyond belief.
Joe, I think that happened before Mother's Day, but the point is well made. It's a family restaurant for God's sake, why walk in there with guns showing? I have a relative who has to carry his gun with him everywhere, but he never exposes it. I don't like it when he comes over with it and I've often told him not to do it. It makes no sense. Leave the gun home unless you've been threatened or you're law enforcement.
If you believe your right to free speech is guaranteed by the constitution and you practice it by participating, many times aggressively at city council meetings, then you cannot disavow others for practicing their right to keep and bear arms. They were apparently within the law, or I'm sure they wouldn't have attempted it. They were with their families, and were practicing freedom of association, freedom of movement, the right to bear arms, peaceful assembly, among many other things, like the right to enter a public restaurant, which the restaurant had no problem with.
Freedom, as has been acknowledged before, is not always pretty, nor nice and neat, nor conforming.
Practice your free speech by opining that you didn't think they should have done what they did, but back up on castigating them for exercising American freedoms and rights.
A few days ago, several people walked into the Old Country Buffet in Dickson City openly carrying weapons, various kinds of pistols in particular. From what I can gather, there was actually a group of them celebrating their right to openly carry firearms. Police were called and the incident led to some of those people being removed from the establishment, and having their guns removed, because they didn't have their permits with them. They later returned to the restaurant.
My only question, aside from the fact that the law provides that a person with a permit may carry a gun in the open, at least from what I understand of the gun laws, is why would anyone want to walk into a family restaurant on Mother's Day with a gun exposed? Allowed or not, my view of that is that it's poor judgment. Are the kids in the place not supposed to be intimidated by the sight of a group of men carrying guns openly? It's a guy thing, apparently, that lends itself to how some men think when their identities are suffering from some other form of abandonement. No toys as kids? I don't know, but grouping together with guns showing, and entering a family restaurant is way beyond acceptable conduct for any normal man, and I stress the word normal.
I'm all for the right to bear arms, but for the immature men out there who don't know any better, I can guarantee you that you can certainly have breakfast in this country without feeling threatened by people eating bacon and eggs.
My Dear Mr Pilchesky, For all of your crusading for the rights of the little guy against the machine, you are terribly ignorant of the constitution. The first ammendment gaurantees your right to say what you wish on this website. The second ammendment gaurantees the first. If it wern't for the second ammendment we would all be servants of our increasing corrupt government.
The second ammendment has been under attack in this country for the last 40 years. Haven't you ever wondered why the democratic (socialists) have been so vehement in their attacks. The millions of dollars that are funneled into phoney anti-gun oranizations like The Million Mom March, or the Brady Campaign who are just fronts for left wing socialists like George Soros. The nanny state beckons. Which socialist would you prefer. It looks like the media has chosen Barack Hussein Obama as the annointed one.
What will happen if this government turns oppressive? What if censorship is ordered? How will you react? That sir is the purpose and the meaning of the Second Ammendment. It has nothing to do with hunting! It has nothing to do with target shooting. We Americans are imbued with a God given right to self defense and liberty.The second ammendments gives us as free people the tools to preseve that liberty.
Thomas Jefferson said it best:
"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ... And what country can preserve its liberties, if it's rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."
In other words, an armed populace keeps goverment honest. Some in government seek to remove this right, so their will and not the peoples will endure. Since the mid sixties I have watched as gun owners has be ridiculed, type cast, and marginalized by the mainsteam media. I am sure it was born out of the self righteous indignation of the anti-war movement in the late sixties and early seventies. Academia and the press have hammered this propaganda home for the last 40 years.
This is Pennsylvania, not New Jersey. More people (500,000) have a license to carry a firearm in PA than almost all other states Firearms owners are not a minority in PA. Why do you think Bob Casey is against gun control? Because he couldn't have been elected otherwise
In Pennsylavnia our rights are also protected by the state constitution: "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned." - Pennsylvania Constitution, Article 1, Section 21
By case law:
Commonwealth v. Hawkins, 692 A.2d 1068, n.4 (1996) "In all parts of Pennsylvania, persons who are licensed may carry concealed firearms. 18 Pa.C.S. § 6108. Except in Philadelphia, firearms may be carried openly without a license.
Ortiz v. Commonwealth, ___ Pa. ___, ___, 681 A.2d 152, 155 (1996) (only in Philadelphia must a person obtain a license for carrying a firearm whether it is unconcealed or concealed; in other parts of the Commonwealth, unconcealed firearms do not require a license)"
The facts in this case are clear. A group of people who are members of an internet forum "www.pafoa.org" were having a get together at the OLd Country Buffet.. Some where openly carrying a firearm. Openly carryng a firearm is LEGAL in PA. One only needs a license to carry openly in Philadelphia. At the behest of a caller, the Dickson City Police department showed up and tried to bully and bull**** the PAFOA members. When the police were told that no law had been broken, a gentlemen who expessed his views was arrested on a bogus charge. He was later released when it was discovered the PD could in fact charge hime with nothing. They did however confiscate his gun illegally because it was not in a PA State Police database. There is no gun registration in PA , only a sales record of certain guns sold.
The Dickson City and Scranton PD both responded and blew the situation way out of proportion. This was a case of the police acting like jack booted thugs against people who stood their ground.
For you to smugly characterize gun owners as immature and stupid, smacks of the same arrogant elitist attitude as Chris Doherty and the politcal hacks you rail against.
Maybe you have been reading too much of your own press.
Joe, as you probably know, the SCOTUS recently heard oral arguments in District of Columbia v. Heller--at issue in that case is a DC statute banning handguns and regulating other firearms like rifles and shotguns.
Kenworthy--you should know that while many subscribe to your view of the 2nd Amendment (that it confers an individual right to bear arms), the SCOTUS has never ruled as such. In fact, the last time the SCOTUS addressed the issue (Miller case ~ 1940), they found the 2nd Amendment confers a collective right to bear arms, thus allowing for government (federal, state, municipal) to restrict that right.
It will be interesting to see how the court rules in Heller. If they decide to rule that the 2nd Amendment confers an individual right to own guns (and, notably, the Court has recognized almost all the other amendments comprising the Bill of Rights as conferring rights on an individual), then many gun control laws at all levels of government may be ripe for challenge.
My expectation is that the Court will decide in line with the Solicitor General's brief, which advocates a median approach--recognizing an individual's right to bear arms but allowing for government intervention with respect to that right.
This is going to turn into one banger of a discussion!!
Basic constitutional rights and the purpose of government as perceived over 200 years ago.
1. The government intervention you speak of is pursuant to the citizens' desire to have the government intervene. Not the other way around, not pursuant to our state or federal representatives, as we all know by now how compromised they are.
2. The freedoms and rights we have come with responsibility and, danger. It's the socialist/democratic view to protect potential victims to the detriment of the strength of the whole. Eventually this weakens the entity. That's why survival of the fittest has worked for millions of years. Our collective responsibilities have been forgotten in the shadow of the money and entertainment culture. If someone like Thomas Jefferson realized that the blood of citizens might have to be shed over time, then certainly we can realize that not every little possible problem for every possible person has to take millions of dollars to fix, or has to distract us from remaining a strong community. Some sacrifice is necessary, although none of us like it.
3. Eroding any rights that were already hard won is a disservice to those who picked up their shovels and rakes from the farms to face a British military which was one of the strongest in the world at the time. Each one of our native revolutionaries acted upon his/her own belief. They were not drafted, nor enslaved, nor commandeered to join the rebel forces.
4. Government intervention makes for bigger government, and higher taxes, and eventually an unmanageable system as we experience every day, right now, at this moment...and complain about.
__________________ You cannot sift out the poor from the community. The poor are indispensable to the rich.
Henry Ward Beecher (1813-1887) American Preacher, Orator, Writer
You wrote the following...." A group of people who are members of an internet forum "www.pafoa.org" were having a get together at the OLd Country Buffet.. Some where openly carrying a firearm. Openly carryng a firearm is LEGAL in PA. One only needs a license to carry openly in Philadelphia.
While it's true that you can openly carry a firearm in legally in PA, some rules do apply. First, the firearm must be legally possessed. You may not carry a firearm if you are under the age of 18, or if you have been convicted of any of the enumerated offenses in PA 18 section 6105 (b). (I'm sure you know them.) Also, (unless prohibited) you may carry the weapon on your person, but you may not carry it in your vehicle without a license. I quote PA 18 section 6106 (a)(1) ..Except as provided in paragraph(2) any person who carries a firearm in any vehicle orany person who carries a firearm concealed on or about his person, except in his place of abode or fixed place of business, without a valid or lawfully issued license under this chapter commits a felony of the third degree. Paragraph 2 states if a person is otherwise eligible to possess a valid license commits only a Misdemeanor 1. (Still a serious charge)
Unless these persons had a license to carry, or a sportman's firearm permit and where on their way to fish and hunt, or if they were on their way to target shoot, they could not legally have the weapon in the vehicle with them. You stated they were having a get together at the "Old Country Buffet". I don't believe that is one of the exceptions listed in the statute.
Perhaps the police who responded weren't aware of the laws. Unless the persons from the "PAFOA" were on foot, all the police neededto do was to wait until the persons drove away, and then arrest them, on view, for at least an M1 commited in their presence.
If the DC cops were smart enough to get the names of the persons involved in the incident, and observed them getting into a vehicle, it's likely they can still arrest them by way of summons or warrant. But please, don't take my word for it. PAFOA appears to want to exercise their 2nd amendment rights, so they may as well exercise their 6th amendment rights as well.....
Please, feel free to rebut my post with facts, as I don't wish to be portrayed as a "jack booted thug".
Hardcore, it's always a pleasure to receive your input on any topic. I give your info a lot of credence. Here's a question first about the law. I thought that you could have a rifle or a pistol in the car, no problem, as long as it was open bolted, empty chamber; in the case of the pistol, even without a license. Maybe you could clear that up for me, even though I read part of the law that you posted.
Here's my opinion of the situation. If the incident occurred partly because of what Hardcore says, that they must have used their vehicles to get to the restaurant, and guns in vehicles are illegal without a license, then the police would have every right to appear and question the people. Actually even if they were within the law, others may not have known that, and so a call to the police would have been a good idea.
As far as the person whose gun was confiscated, we'd have to learn more about the actual situation. If the guy was just giving the cops a hard time, (nothing threatening, no physical combativeness, just verbal combat), and the guy was legally within his rights to have that gun on him and/or in his vehicle, then the police probably should've just issued a citation for whatever it was...disorderly or whatever. I'd like to know the circumstances which provoked the confiscation.
Sure, you have a right to own and carry around your gun, but if you do so at the Old Country Buffet in Dickson City, you're an ass. You also have the right to free speech, but if you get stand up in Cinemark and start speaking to the audience about states rights, or Jesus, or the Penguins, you're also an ass.
There's a time and place to exercise your rights. The Old Country Buffet shouldn't be your sandbox for 2nd amendment rights.
I'm not saying it's illegal, or it's not your right, I'm just saying your an ass if you carry a weapon into a restaurant, or book store, or walmart. It's my right to call you an ass.
I'm not saying it's illegal, or it's not your right, I'm just saying your an ass if you carry a weapon into a restaurant, or book store, or walmart. It's my right to call you an ass.
Do you think that any of the people that were killed in the above shootings would say that?
Dickson City's meeting may be a little crowded tonight. You may be on the wrong side of the isle with this one Joe. http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum46/10785.html
__________________ "I think that when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody." --Barack Obama<---NOT!
I'm not saying it's illegal, or it's not your right, I'm just saying your an ass if you carry a weapon into a restaurant, or book store, or walmart. It's my right to call you an ass.
Do you think that any of the people that were killed in the above shootings would say that?
Yeah, i'm pretty sure they'd call the person who carried the weapon in the restaurant an ass. I know i'd call the person who shot me an ass.
But that's besides the point. These people carry their weapon around to prove a point. They LOVE when something like this happens. Just like hippie protesters who like to get arrested, it's about publicity.
You may be on the wrong side of the isle with this one Joe.
I didn't understand alot of this when I made the original post. I'm really not a gun person, so my education was limited on this. But, let me say this, I'm a firm believer in the constitution and our freedoms and rights. I also believe that those freedoms and rights come with responsibility, and that's where I questioned the purpose of those people going into a restaurant with guns.
It appears now that the public needs an education on the gun carrying laws, so that they can understand how someone is exercising those freedoms. I don't look forward to any erosion of those freedoms, rather that the citizens get educated, and and act responsibly in exercising them.
My Dear Mr Pilchesky, For all of your crusading for the rights of the little guy against the machine, you are terribly ignorant of the constitution. The first ammendment gaurantees your right to say what you wish on this website.
My Dear Mr. Kenworthy,
Unless this message board is owned and operated by the government, the first amendment does not apply here; no one has a right of free speech here.
Since you're going to lecture people on their Constitutionally-guaranteed rights.
When do you think that people should feel that they need to protect themselves or carry a gun? At work, dinner, in a park, in a car, in a mall, in the grocery store, in a theater.....All these places that you would think that you are safe have been the locations of shootings. You never know when you might have to defend yourself, ever. IMHO your the ass here..
My Dear Mr Pilchesky, For all of your crusading for the rights of the little guy against the machine, you are terribly ignorant of the constitution. The first ammendment gaurantees your right to say what you wish on this website.
My Dear Mr. Kenworthy,
Unless this message board is owned and operated by the government, the first amendment does not apply here; no one has a right of free speech here.
Since you're going to lecture people on their Constitutionally-guaranteed rights.
It looks like this whole incedent might have ended amicably if the DC police didn't call the DA (ha ha ha) and get some pretty bad advice on keeping one of the guns. Looks like the DC police dept. and the DA's office might be writing one of those checks that Joe got a while back. The incompetency of the DA's office never ceases to amaze me. http://www.pafoa.org/forum/concealed-open-carry-121/21292-pa-patriot-arrested-oc-dinner-old-country-buffet-dickson-city-5-9-a-page-21.html
__________________ "I think that when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody." --Barack Obama<---NOT!
J Kenworthy wrote:My Dear Mr Pilchesky, For all of your crusading for the rights of the little guy against the machine, you are terribly ignorant of the constitution. The first ammendment gaurantees your right to say what you wish on this website.
So why don't you give us a comprehensive education on all the articles and amendments of the constitution?
And, as you duly note, one can't go into a public place and shout 'fire' under the guise of free speech. That freedom comes with responsibility, right?
I think it's good that people are exercising their freedoms and rights in this case, since we don't want to forget that we have them before the government takes them away.
When do you think that people should feel that they need to protect themselves or carry a gun? At work, dinner, in a park, in a car, in a mall, in the grocery store, in a theater.....All these places that you would think that you are safe have been the locations of shootings. You never know when you might have to defend yourself, ever. IMHO your the ass here..
Assuming you've read their website, you know that many on there make "days" of carrying their weapon. They don't do it all the time, therefore to say it's about defense is a cop out Saying it's about defense might be true for some of them, but not all. So get off the soapbox and realize that the only reason they're doing this is because it's technicall legal.
I hope DCPD enforce traffic laws tonight. 1mph over the speed limit and you get a ticket. travelling in the left lane on the highway for more than 1 mile: ticket. For all the things that are technically legal, there are a lot of things most people do on a daily basis that are technically ILLEGAL. Have you taken all your batteries or flourescent lightbulbs to a hazordous waste disposal site? Have you ever jaywalked? Do you ALWAYS turn your headlights on through a costruction zone?
I'm not saying it's illegal, or it's not your right, I'm just saying your an ass if you carry a weapon into a restaurant, or book store, or walmart. It's my right to call you an ass.
Do you think that any of the people that were killed in the above shootings would say that?
Yeah, i'm pretty sure they'd call the person who carried the weapon in the restaurant an ass. I know i'd call the person who shot me an ass.
But that's besides the point. These people carry their weapon around to prove a point. They LOVE when something like this happens. Just like hippie protesters who like to get arrested, it's about publicity.
It's not about publicity Mr. Kline it's about defense. I OC (open carry) in the summer because I am not going to wear a jacket in 90 degree weather. I CC (conceal carry) in the winter because I am wearing a jacket then. The reason I carry is defense schools, churches, and restaurants have been shot up. If the SHTF I want to know I can protect myself and my family. And trust me if I ever dine in the same place as you and someone comes in to shoot you'll be glad I'm armed whether you believe in it or not. Va. Tech they knew a shooter was on campus ad still couldn't stop it because it was a "Gun free zone" an armed student or professor could have saved a lot of lives. The reason the church shooting in CO was ended so quickly was a citizen carrying. In closing just remember Mr. Kline bad guys don't open carry so you don't who they are. Good guys open carry you can tell who we are. If you would like more knowledge come to PAFOA.org you'll learn all you need to know. Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion... in private self-defense. John Adams
jkline222 wrote: Assuming you've read their website, you know that many on there make "days" of carrying their weapon. They don't do it all the time, therefore to say it's about defense is a cop out Saying it's about defense might be true for some of them, but not all. So get off the soapbox and realize that the only reason they're doing this is because it's technically legal.
There's nothing "technical" about it nor legal; the founders recognized it as a god-given right and wrote it into the Constitution as a right that cannot be infringed upon or taken away by government. They also recognized that an armed populace would provide a check against government. People are free to associate with whomever they please. Often, this includes groups of friends and like-minded individuals who plan to get together for bowling, ball games, and even dining out. So, no, it's not all about defense, it's about exercising their rights to bear arms and to freely associate.
This is my first post on this board. I am not really from around here, although I grew up in Tobyhanna. And I have visited Dickson City many times in the past. I am here because of this incident being discussed. As I read through this thread, I saw a lot of opinion as well as the law quoted.
Hardcase, you posted some law, and then asked for a rebuttal. To what? The law is pretty straightforward. People do have the right to carry openly on foot, but need a LTCF (license to carry firearms) to have that loaded gun in a vehicle. If the police were convinced that there were people who had illegally transported guns to the OCB, then they should have waited until they entered their vehicles to arrest them. There was no cause until that point. The actions by the police were in direct contradiction of the law you have posted. They oppressed people for no reason at all, and in direct contradiction to the law. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, especially for those tasked with enforcing it.
jkline222, it is hard to argue, or even discuss a topic with someone whose main thing seems to be name calling. Is this the sum and substance of your argument, to call people with whom you disagree names? What upsets you so about people carrying weapons? Men (and women) have carried weapons on their person for thousands of years and in all societies. Why should ours be any different? If you choose to go disarmed, depending on the police to rescue you in the event you need it, that is fine, but why should any of the rest of us follow your example, especially when the law allows us to carry the means of our own protection?
As far as frightening children and others, what is the real source of that fright? Is it really the sight of a gun, or is it the attitudes instilled in those children by parents who don't know any better themselves? Using the argument that one should not carry a gun because it might frighten someone else is sophistry. We might as well say that black people should not eat in restaurants in case a child is frightened by the color of their skin. Oh wait, that happened, didn't it? There is no law that says people have a right to not be frightened by something that outside their ken. What many of us are in fact trying to do is show the world that it is not just the bad guys who carry guns. Come on, how many bad guys show up with women and children and proceed to peacefully eat their dinner before shooting the place up? We are teaching our children that guns are tools, just like hammers, chainsaws, cars, etc. In fact, look at the highway statistics. If you want to be frightened of something, shiver in fear at the sight of a car going by. You are much more likely to be killed by one of them than by a gun.
PA has enough in the way of laws that a person carrying a gun legally is one of the least likely people to commit a crime. He or she has been checked out a number of times already, once for buying each gun, and another if he or she has applied for a LTCF. There are enough people out there who are carrying guns illegally that it is a real good idea to have your own, much in the same way a lot of us think seat belts and fire extinguishers are good ideas too. You hope and pray you never need it, but when you do, you really do.
Assuming you've read their website, you know that many on there make "days" of carrying their weapon. They don't do it all the time, therefore to say it's about defense is a cop out Saying it's about defense might be true for some of them, but not all. So get off the soapbox and realize that the only reason they're doing this is because it's technicall legal.
You are writing outside of your own knowledge set and making assumptions that are not true. I am one of those on "that site" who chronicles my open carry experiences. I carry all the time, although sometimes it is concealed if I think that is the better course of action. And, I am not always out and about in public. Those chronicles are there to show the world that this is mostly a non-event. It is only when we are assaulted by those who are supposed to know the law, those who are in governmental authority, when the real trouble comes.
You seem to be very interested in justice politically, but you don't seem to think that this is a vaild political point. Are you familiar with history? Do you know of the millions of people who died in Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, and other paradises here on earth because the government first took away the right of the people to bear arms? If you think it can't happen here, just look at the behavior of the DC police when faced with the law. They ignored it and made their own as they went along.
It's my understanding that unless your an office of the law, you cannot walk around with your gun exposed.
It's my understanding that after the Black Panthers followed police around with their guns exposed-- making sure the police did not engage in brutality--that a law was passed in the 1960s that forced gun owners to conceal their weapon.
FACTS ABOUT OPEN CARRY Yes, open carry IS legal in Pennsylvania. In Pennsylvania, persons who are not prohibited by law from owning firearms may openly carry a handgun in plain sight with no license except in vehicles, cities of the first class (Philadelphia), and where prohibited specifically by statute. Ref: 18 PACS §6106, §6107, §6108 There are also two cases that specifically state that a person may carry a firearm openly: Commonwealth v. Ortiz: www.tinyurl.com/2wtovz Commonwealth v. Hawkins: www.tinyurl.com/346wwr
Open carry (handgun) in a vehicle requires a valid PA LTCF or a carry license from ANY other state.
Open carry in Philadelphia requires a valid PA LTCF or a reciprocal states carry license.
You do not need to be a resident of PA to open carry
Cities, towns, and municipalities are prohibited by PA law from enacting laws prohibiting concealed or open carry. Ref: 18 PACS §6120
There is no stipulation in law that a PA LTCF holder must carry concealed. Furthermore, lawful open carry of a firearm is NOT grounds for revocation of a PA LTCF.
Brandishing & Disturbing the Peace: There is no brandishing or disturbing the peace law in PA. A person who shows or indicates that they have a gun with the intent to intimidate another person can be charged with various forms of assault, including Terroristic Threats. Mere open carry of a handgun, lacking any other threatening behavior or verbal threat, is not assault.
Disorderly Conduct & Terroristic Threats: Open carry, in a holster, lacking any other threatening behavior by the person carrying, does not meet the statutory conditions of Disorderly Conduct or Terroristic Threats since open carry is a legitimate exercise of a Pennsylvanian's rights, such conduct is not by itself threatening, nor does it cause a hazardous or physically offensive condition that serves no legitimate purpose of the actor.
Are the kids in the place not supposed to be intimidated by the sight of a group of men carrying guns openly?
Let me preface this by saying that I do not own a handgun and therefore do not carry one. I am, however, an active member of the PAFOA forum, and a staunch advocate for Second Amendment rights.
I don't see where it's relevant that kids are intimidated. I grew up with rifles, shotguns, cap guns, and squirt guns. I was taught from a very early age to respect firearms. I absolutely intend on teaching my children the same respect, and would hope that they would NOT feel intimidated by men carrying handguns. If, for some reason, they were, then it would be a learning oppritunity. Really, the only reason any children would be intimidated, is because their misinformed parents conditioned them to respond in that manner.
Further, this was not a group of men. The assumption that it was a bunch of guys grab-assing and showing off is stereotypical at best. The men were there with their families, I guarantee you that the children were much more frightened of the jackboot police officers harassing people, than they were of people just sitting there eating dinner.
Weisenberg Guy wrote:..."Hardcase, you posted some law, and then asked for a rebuttal. No, I said feel free to rebut my post. Since J. Kenworthy feels the police are "jackbooted thugs" an obvious comparison to Nazi Germany, I wanted to make sure he/she understood I had no aversion to an open factual discussion. BTW, It's "Hardcore" from the movie Full Metal Jacket when Joker executes a wounded Vietnamese sniper. (Animal says "F***ing Hardcore.")
To what? The law is pretty straightforward. People do have the right to carry openly on foot, but need a LTCF (license to carry firearms) to have that loaded gun in a vehicle. If the police were convinced that there were people who had illegally transported guns to the OCB, then they should have waited until they entered their vehicles to arrest them. Exactly right.
There was no cause until that point. The actions by the police were in direct contradiction of the law you have posted. Absent reasonable suspicion, again exactly right.
They oppressed people for no reason at all, and in direct contradiction to the law. Now, you're stretching it a bit. Why were the police there? They responded to a complaint. They were doing their job. Questioning a person is not "oppressing" them.
Ignorance of the law is no excuse, especially for those tasked with enforcing it." Again, true enough. But I have doubts about the resoning behind carrying the guns openly.
J. Kenworthy was kind enough to print a website, http://www.pafoa.org/ and I took the time to read the discussion about the meeting at Old Country Buffet. It seems that people actually went to the trouble of having others legally transport their guns to OCB, just so they could openly carry them into the restaurant. That sounds more like trying to attract attention rather than about protecting oneself.
If a large entourage of "Pagans" motorcycle gang members showed up at OCB carrying pick handles (their weapon of choice) they would legally be able to carry them. But their obvious motive would be to intimidate and annoy the others present. How is the large group that showed up toting handguns any different? Sounds very close to PA 18 section 5503, Disorderly Conduct, that states, "with intent to cause public annoyance, inconvenience or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, he: (a)(4) creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose of the actor." Did it cause public alarm? Yes, the police were called. Was a hazardous or physically offensive condition created? Yes...people were obviously offended and believed loaded handguns to be hazardous. Did it serve a legitimate purpose to the actor? If they carried the weapons for self defense, no. However, clearly, their motive was to attract attention.
For the record, I am a 2nd amendment advocate. I'm an NRA member, and if people want to walk around openly carrying firearms, more power to them. It would definitely act as a deterrant to many criminals. But carrying a sidearm to look cool or "just because you can", is somewhat of a concern.
Finally, the gist of what I have seen from the open carry advocates seems to be that the police are facists trying to disarm legally armed citizens. If you feel that a militia or a group of well armed vigilantes would do a better job, have at it. I'll gladly retire and you guys can chase the badguys down dark alleys.
I'm not debating wether it's legal for you to carry a weapon into the Old Country Buffet. If 10 people dressed up in the KKK uniform, or Top hats and tuxedos, or ninja outfits and went to Perkins, i'd call them asses too. Get over it.
There's a time and a place to wear ninja outfits. Friday night Old Country Buffet isn't one of them.
This thread should go poof or this website will be inundated with whackjobs from opencarry. Lets focus on those actually robbing us of our money and rights instead of those who could rob us.
Those men who have to carry a gun all the time are usually displaying the only kind of real firepower they have. They're duds otherwise in every sense of the word. I think I'd put my own husband down if he ever pulled that stunt on me in public. I'd be embarrassed beyond belief.
You should really come up with a better argument becuase with a screen name like yours, I find it very hard to believe anything would embarass you.
Now, you're stretching it a bit. Why were the police there? They responded to a complaint. They were doing their job. Questioning a person is not "oppressing" them.
Ignorance of the law is no excuse, especially for those tasked with enforcing it." Again, true enough. But I have doubts about the resoning behind carrying the guns openly.
If a large entourage of "Pagans" motorcycle gang members showed up at OCB carrying pick handles (their weapon of choice) they would legally be able to carry them. But their obvious motive would be to intimidate and annoy the others present. How is the large group that showed up toting handguns any different? Sounds very close to PA 18 section 5503, Disorderly Conduct, that states, "with intent to cause public annoyance, inconvenience or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, he: (a)(4) creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose of the actor." Did it cause public alarm? Yes, the police were called. Was a hazardous or physically offensive condition created? Yes...people were obviously offended and believed loaded handguns to be hazardous. Did it serve a legitimate purpose to the actor? If they carried the weapons for self defense, no. However, clearly, their motive was to attract attention.
For the record, I am a 2nd amendment advocate. I'm an NRA member, and if people want to walk around openly carrying firearms, more power to them. It would definitely act as a deterrant to many criminals. But carrying a sidearm to look cool or "just because you can", is somewhat of a concern.
Finally, the gist of what I have seen from the open carry advocates seems to be that the police are facists trying to disarm legally armed citizens. If you feel that a militia or a group of well armed vigilantes would do a better job, have at it. I'll gladly retire and you guys can chase the badguys down dark alleys.
Sorry Hardcore, I mixed your screen name up with a friend of mine who goes by Headcase. It was inadvertent and I'll try not to let it happen again. There is nothing wrong with the cops coming to the OCB to investigate a complaint of a person or persons with a gun. It went wrong when they started confiscating guns, searching people, and asking for ID when none is required by law. The protagonist in the whole story was arrested for speaking the law as it is written, and had some of his personal property illegally taken from him. That is the wrong part.
According to the "after action" reports, no one did any scaring of people more so than the cops. OCB management made a comment to the effect that there was no trouble until the police showed up. Most of us are very supportive of the police. But, that does not mean they get a free pass to do what they want. They are not above the law. They do ot make the law. They are charged with enforcing the law as it is written, regardless of their personal attitude toward that law.
But to use your criteria for whether or not police should be called, if I am alarmed at a bunch of people with orange hair (for example Antisystemicmovements and his family come to eat) or people with lots of tatoos and piercings come in to eat, I am justified at calling the police because I am scared. I don't think so. I carry my gun for protection, but I want other people to learn that it is not a thing to be feared. The only rude and aggressive people in the OCB that night were the cops. The PAFOA people were polite, even under duress, and even under illegal treatment. The evidence is that OCB welcomed them back in to finish their meals.
And if a bunch of Pagans came into the restaurant with ax handles, wouldn't you want to be armed? I would. But I do not claim to want to replace the police, unless it be with police of better education as to the law. I am not a cop, don't want to be a cop. I have lots of cop friends though, and I can tell a bad one or a good one.
I'm not debating wether it's legal for you to carry a weapon into the Old Country Buffet. If 10 people dressed up in the KKK uniform, or Top hats and tuxedos, or ninja outfits and went to Perkins, i'd call them asses too. Get over it.
There's a time and a place to wear ninja outfits. Friday night Old Country Buffet isn't one of them.
This thread should go poof or this website will be inundated with whackjobs from opencarry. Lets focus on those actually robbing us of our money and rights instead of those who could rob us.
Are you suggesting that I should not be able to protect and defend myself and family from a deadly assualt? I should just allow myself to be killed along with my family? Bad people do not think OCB or other eateries are off limits and the Cop will only be there to take pictures your dead body. Would'nt it have been better if the VTech shooting was only the gunman getting shot by a law abiding Citizen carrying a gun?
I'm not debating wether it's legal for you to carry a weapon into the Old Country Buffet. If 10 people dressed up in the KKK uniform, or Top hats and tuxedos, or ninja outfits and went to Perkins, i'd call them asses too. Get over it.
There's a time and a place to wear ninja outfits. Friday night Old Country Buffet isn't one of them.
This thread should go poof or this website will be inundated with whackjobs from opencarry. Lets focus on those actually robbing us of our money and rights instead of those who could rob us.
Let's see, heap more names upon those already used. My but you are clever, aren't you? And you say it is a right (at least, I am assuming that is what you mean) but not a right which should be exercised.
So what is so important about your rights that I should care about them?
You're already abusing your right to freedom of speech. You can't even form an intelligent argument for why you think we shouldn't do what is right and legal. You can only call us names.
What about 10 kids in soccer uniforms? Is that okay with you? How about 10 people in hiking gear, or biking tights? Maybe that might be crossing the line. I don't think you are nearly as interested in the rights of others as you make out to be.
The DC police were aggressive because carrying a visible weapon offended the bourgeois sensibilities of shoppers the DC business district is working so earnestly to lure out of Scranton.
__________________ Organized crime or Mafia. I dont know what that is to tell you the truth. -- Louis DeNaples.
When a person allows the police to determine what rights they have in THEIR view the whole constitution should be ripped up and thrown away. We we GIVEN these RIGHTS... freedom of speech, religious beliefs, KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. Only if we exercise these rights can we maintain them. Just because YOU dont like me carrying a firearm LEGALLY and openly does NOT make it illegal. Any more than if I dont like the color of your hair makes that illegal. Do not judge others for what they do.... but how they do it. It IS legal to do this in PA... and I do it. I do this to protect myself and my family. With all the illegal immigration crimes occurring in my area I feel it is necessary. I have had two confrontations in the past 3 years and in neither case did I have to draw my firearm. I was ready to.. IF NECESSARY... but both instances were eliminated by my withdrawl from the situation. However if I was attacked I would have... for my safety or my wifes.....
People need to realize that the criminal element out there does NOT care about the 2nd amendment, or the first... or ANY of them... as long as they get WHAT THEY WANT... and if it means stepping on me, or you or someone else they will do it.
Hopefully it will never happen, but just like you keep a fire extinguisher in the house to prevent a fire, I keep a firearm on me to prevent that possible threat from injuring me.
We were not given these rights. Not by government, that is. These rights are GUARANTEED, not granted, by the Constitution. These rights are inherent and were recognized by the founders as god-given.
That is what I meant..... we obtained these rights by our forefathers realizing the need to constrain the government so that it would not take away these rights.....Thats all.....
jkline222 wrote:Lets focus on those actually robbing us of our money and rights instead of those who could rob us.
The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.
Pennsylvania Constitution, Article 1; Section 21. "Right to Bear Arms"
Bill of Rights Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
jkline222 which rights should we fight for??? The ones that only suit your cause and we can throw out the others???? This is a LOCAL issue that happened with the DA's office and the Dickson City PD, so what do you think is an important rights violation to worthy a debate? Please pick one, which right should we be concerned about and which are not important?
Bill of Rights
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Amendment III
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Amendment XI
The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another state, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state.
Weisenberg Guy wrote: And you say it is a right (at least, I am assuming that is what you mean) but not a right which should be exercised.
Exactly! Would you think the average person would feel uncomfortable if a group of 12 young middle eastern men wearing turbans and robes started praying in the middle of Old Country Buffet? Would you think it unreasonable for the police to show up and question what was going on?
Please, people on this site deal with REAL theft, REAL infringements on their rights, Real corruption. I'm sorry that their dinner was interrupted by the nosy gestapo. I'm sorry their right to anonymity was trampled on by inquisitve police who demanded to know who they were. I'm sorry lots of people at the restaurant were uncomfortable enough to actually dial 911. And i'm sorry you're in the minority. Believe it or not, most people don't care about your right to carry a weapon in public, and most people I've talked to would be scared ****less if a bunch of people walked in with weapons while they were eating dinner.
Weisenberg Guy wrote: And you say it is a right (at least, I am assuming that is what you mean) but not a right which should be exercised.
Exactly! Would you think the average person would feel uncomfortable if a group of 12 young middle eastern men wearing turbans and robes started praying in the middle of Old Country Buffet? Would you think it unreasonable for the police to show up and question what was going on?
Please, people on this site deal with REAL theft, REAL infringements on their rights, Real corruption. I'm sorry that their dinner was interrupted by the nosy gestapo. I'm sorry their right to anonymity was trampled on by inquisitve police who demanded to know who they were. I'm sorry lots of people at the restaurant were uncomfortable enough to actually dial 911. And i'm sorry you're in the minority. Believe it or not, most people don't care about your right to carry a weapon in public, and most people I've talked to would be scared ****less if a bunch of people walked in with weapons while they were eating dinner.
So say they take away our right to carry a firearm.
What do you think they'll come after next? Right to privacy? Perhaps your right to be a wet blanket... er, right to free speech, that is?
So say they take away our right to carry a firearm.
What do you think they'll come after next? Right to privacy? Perhaps your right to be a wet blanket... er, right to free speech, that is?
How about the fact that taxes are so high it's tough to afford a firearm? How about it's difficult to find the real story because our local newspaper is owned by the establishment? How about contracts going to cronys so they can earn more money off the backs of tax payers? How about the Police and DA actually trying to shut this site down? Elections rigged, corrupt polititions, books cooked, etc etc.
Your right to carry a gun to the old country buffet is pretty far down on my list of things to care about.
