Some people just don't get it

[Aguila Blanca]

There's been an interesting (ahem) "discussion" raging on the forum at TheHighRoad.us concerning nationwide unlicensed carry. Astonishingly (to me), 8 percent of the respondents to the poll do NOT think national carry should be allowed without a permit.

One in particular, "skoro," claims to be a "firm" supporter of the 2nd Amendment ... but he doesn't think it's safe to allow just anyone to carry. He lives in Texas, which has perhaps the most rigorous training and qualification requirements for a permit of any state ... and he doesn't consider it an infringement of the RKBA.

Give it a read ... the discussion will show you why the RKBA community is so unable to deal with the antis. We can't even trust our alleged allies.

http://www.thehighroad.us/showthread.php?t=419960

[Rich-D]

Some Gun Rights Advocates are happy with and feel empowered by an attitude of,
I qualified, so should every else, or even worse yet I can, but they can't!

Pa has no training or shooting qualification for a Concealed Carry License.
And also, Open-Carry without a license in all but Philadelphia.
There has yet to be a problem related to either.

[Frank]

Well AB, I have to admit that I'm in a quandary. On one hand, I don't like the idea of the government, especial people who are antagonistic to private citizens owning and carrying guns, deciding what the standards should be.

On the other hand, I see all manner of atrocious gun handling and abysmal marksmanship at the ranges I frequent. Indeed it is the rule rather than the exception.

What is also a concern for me is the number of folks, based on what I've seen on various other boards, who seem to think that training isn't important. I've seen too many, IMHO, self styled experienced shooters advising beginners that training isn't necessary or important. So it seems that there are a bunch of gun owners out there who aren't inclined to seek training on their own initiative. I wonder how proficient they are.

Then again, from questions I've seen on other boards a lot of people have a lousy understanding of the laws related to self defense and the use of force. Every so often we see a post like, "I just got my CCW; when can I shoot someone?"

Okay, so let's accept the proposition that training requirements are an infringement. How can we get folks who want to walk around in public with lethal weapons to want to become better educated and more proficient?

And indeed I will agree that a training requirement is an infringement. But as I've noted numerous times in the past, it's settled law that a constitutionally protected right can be regulated. So I strongly suspect that in the event of a court challenge, a training requirement for a "shall issue" CCW will pass muster, even under strict scrutiny.

[DoubleTap45]

She got a pistol permit (CCW) in PA after one of her children was MURDERED. She has been a responsible gun owner by all accounts for several years.

The cable company kept going to her BACK door which is not visible from the street every other day for passing permission to work behind her property. She TOLD them in no uncertain terms to always knock at the FRONT door. One morning she hear banging at the back door very early. She approached with her gun DOWN AT HER SIDE in a non-threatening manner.

The cable guys were told to use the yard but please knock at the front door. A day or so later cops arrived. They took not only her gun but her PERMIT! They said she was accused of threatening the cable guys. This stinks like a week old bluefish.

IF she threatened them WHY did they go about their work all day and THEN call the police? This is Philly and the well-named mayor of that town has waged unholy Jihad against the 2nd Amendment on a scale with Daly and Bloomberg. :butthead:

Ray
(Ray from the Bronx on NRA News)

[Frank]

.... One morning she hear banging at the back door very early. She approached with her gun DOWN AT HER SIDE in a non-threatening manner.

The cable guys were told to use the yard but please knock at the front door. A day or so later cops arrived. They took not only her gun but her PERMIT! They said she was accused of threatening the cable guys....I'm sorry Ray, but I have to file this under "What the Heck Was She Thinking?"

This woman, IMO, exercised some really lousy judgment, and it looks like it's going to wind up costing her. Maybe she'll be able to avoid an assault charge. Maybe she'll get her permit and gun back. But she's probably going to be spending a bunch of money on a lawyer and wind up being put through a wringer.

A gun visible in someone's hand, even when held at one's side, during the course of a conversation with another person is usually going to be threatening and intimidating to that other person. And in fact many people, especially non-gunnies, are going to immediately believe that she intended the presence of a gun in her hand to be threatening and intimidating: she pretty much knew it was the cable guys at the door; she was sick and tired of their ignoring her requests to use the front door; and she was going to make her point with a gun in her hand.

A gun in the hand is not for threatening or intimidating. It's for defending yourself against what a reasonable and prudent person in the same situation and knowing what you know would believe is an imminent lethal attack. And given the periodic, unwelcome appearances of cable technicians at her back door, she may have an uphill fight convincing anyone that a reasonable person would have thought that this time it was going to be a lethal attack.

Yes, she'll point out that the knock on the door was earlier than usual. I'm not sure how far that's going to get her.

We know she was frustrated with the cable folks. But what else did she try to get this fixed, besides answering the door with a gun in her hand? Did she call and/or write the cable company complaining? Did she deny the cable guys further access since they were flaunting her requests to come to the front door? Did she report the trespasses to the police?

To me this is a good example of a gross misuse of a gun. A gun is a highly specialized tool with limited application. It is not a tool to be used generally to resolve a wide range of annoyances.

[DoubleTap45]

Even the cable people acknowledged that they'd returned at a highly unusual hour (6am) to begin work and that the neighborhood is more than a little "rough". The local cops added that there had been a large number of early morning home invasions so she was not completely paranoid. She SHOULD have tucked in her pants with her top just covering it and only opened the door a crack. That's hindsight for you.

Ray

[DoubleTap45]

Ah, just one more little thing. If they were SO scared then WHY did they work ALL day with that "crazy lady" and her gun nearby? They SUDDENLY got concerned AFTER they quit. Probably they related the story to a supervisor (union) at the cable company. He probably got all bent out of shape and told them they were "supposed" to report her. :nono:

-Ray

[Frank]

...She SHOULD have tucked in her pants with her top just covering it and only opened the door a crack. That's hindsight for you...Yes, but she still needed to be smarter and to have exercised better judgment. There's usually not a whole lot of leeway for "oops, I should have thought of that" when guns are involved.

...Probably they related the story to a supervisor (union) at the cable company. He probably got all bent out of shape and told them they were "supposed" to report her...Probably so, but so what. Bottom line is that at best she'd going to get put through the wringer and help some lawyer make a couple of payments on his Bimmer.

But she is not the victim of some great anti-gun conspiracy in this case. She is the victim of her own lousy judgment.

[DoubleTap45]

They'll admit that they were NOT really scared and put in a full day behind her house. MAYBE that will help. Depends on the judge. If Nutter appointed him she might as well move.

-Ray

[Rich-D]

A woman responding to banging on a rear door of her home at 6AM, opens the door with a gun in hand pointed toward the floor.

I fail to see which PA Statute the woman violated.

[Dial 1911 for Help]

But she is not the victim of some great anti-gun conspiracy in this case. She is the victim of her own lousy judgment.I don't agree, Frank. I think the fault is about 80% guns-are-scary mentality among the public which IS largely the result of a great anti-gun conspiracy (though self perpetuating once rolling). If I showed up at someone's FRONT door in a bad neighborhood outside normal visiting hours and they showed up armed without pointing the gun at me, I'd not feel as if they were threatening me personally. I don't feel threatened when a cop pulls me over for speeding and he's not only armed, he's an agent of the government.

The 20% of culpability I'll give the woman is because, as you stated, it was an ongoing job for the cable guys and a reasonable person might have assumed it was them again this time.

As a practical matter, you're correct, the woman will be drug through heck for this, and maybe on that basis alone, rather than the merits, she should have thought twice. But the problem is, if we always analyze situations like this from a pragmatic point of view, it lets the antis move the bar. When we're meek is when anti's get to shift public perception a little their way. We implicitly admit their prerogative to determine the norm.

[Rich-D]

The 20% of culpability I'll give the woman is because, as you stated, it was an ongoing job for the cable guys and a reasonable person might have assumed it was them again this time.

If the facts presented here are accurate, my thought are:

First, I have not heard of a Cable Crew working on residential property arriving at 6 AM.

Second, The woman clearly gave prior instructions to the Cable workers, to utilize her front door only. How was she to know or have reasonable expectations that it was the Cable workers at the back door at 6 AM.

Third, The woman who already experienced a murder in her family and who is living in a high crime area, did nothing to place the Cable worker in jeopardy, nor did she make any threat to do so.

Fourth, The woman violated no law, rule or regulation in the PA Statutes that I am aware of. In fact, in PA one has the right to Open Carry of Firearms on the street, without risk of being charged with brandishing. In the present case the woman was in the confines of her home, and did not point the gun at the workers. She was merely holding the gun at her side, muzzle pointed to the floor.

I am somewhat puzzled that so much fault is being attributed to the woman by my Gun Rights Associates.

[DoubleTap45]

The judges interperation of the law and the political atmosphere. Mayor Nutter has a deep-seated hatred of ALL guns and ALL gun owners and is on a personal jihad against the 2nd Amendment. He does NOT care that the duly elected legislature passed a CCW law WITH statewide EXEMPTION. :dead_hors

Philly has NO LEGAL RIGHT to restrict CCW or gun ownership because of the exemption law but that won't stop Nutter. He has the same level of rationality as John Brown storming the armory at Harper's Ferry. He's on a self-appointed "mission from God" to purge the 2nd Amendment from Philly and the REST of PA. :nono:

The actions of the cable crew ARE fishy, though. IF they were so terrified why did they work a WHOLE DAY and only call the police the next morning? I scent a rodent here, something I am only TOO familiar with.

Ray

[DoubleTap45]

I'll pass along these concerns and maybe he and some of their Legal Beagles can sniff out some sense.

Ray

[Aguila Blanca]

A woman responding to banging on a rear door of her home at 6AM, opens the door with a gun in hand pointed toward the floor.

I fail to see which PA Statute the woman violated.
I agree. I don't see anything unreasonable or "threatening" about it at all. I don't live in a "bad" section of Philadelphia, and I have answered unexpected knocks at my suburban door with a gun in hand. Gotta disagree, Counselor. I don't think her intention was to "intimidate" anyone. I think her intention was to be prepared to defend herself in case it WASN'T the cable guys at the door.

Which, to me, is perfectly reasonable. But then ... I lived in Philadelphia for almost four years.

[Rich-D]

It reminds me of the Soccer Mom who open carried at children's soccer games. Others being appalled contacted the Sheriff who revoked her license to carry. The court ordered a return of her license and the Sheriff was sued. The woman was murdered by her husband prior to the lawsuit being heard.

Personally, I did not approve of the Soccer Mom's actions. However, As the woman was acting within her rights under the laws of PA. I obtained permission from the woman and m1911.org to post her story and provide a link to the PAFOA, which was supporting her and conducting a fund raiser.

In the present case, I also have answered my door on several occasions gun in hand pointed to the floor when I perceived a possible threat while wearing pajamas which would not support a gun.

There is no mention of the womans attire, however at 6AM it is reasonable to conclude that her attire would not be suited to support a gun.

Furthermore, PA Statute is silent on how a gun must be carried in public.

PA Title 18 § 6108. Carrying firearms on public streets or public property
in Philadelphia.
No person shall carry a firearm, rifle or shotgun at any time
upon the public streets or upon any public property in a city of
the first class unless:
(1) such person is licensed to carry a firearm; or
(2) such person is exempt from licensing under section
6106(b) of this title (relating to firearms not to be carried
without a license).

[Skytower]

If I were in the same situation, or had a late night visitor, I would have a gun in hand. I would position myself so they could not see it. I would also block the door with my foot so as to slow a forced entry.
I only see a problem with her showing that she was armed.

[Rich-D]

I only see a problem with her showing that she was armed.

I agree that under the circumstances we are aware of, it would have been prudent not to have displayed her gun in hand. However, if there were no verbal threats or aggressive movements with the gun, I don't see a violation of PA Law. The fact that the cable workers did not report it on that day and continued their functions also shows that they were not in fear. The woman was arrested the following day.

[DoubleTap45]

That said, this doesn't just stink like old blue fish, it smells like a whole trawler. I think we have a big bucket of very bad sushi here although more details MAY filter out.

-Ray