Pennsylvania finds stop and frisk of those carrying guns unconstitutional

[Swordsmyth]

Today, the Pennsylvania State Supreme Court issued a significant 53-page majority opinion in the criminal appeal of Commonwealth v. Hicks. Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) and Firearms Policy Foundation (FPF) filed an important coalition amicus brief cited by the Court supporting Hicks in December of 2017, alongside Firearms Owners Against Crime (FOAC) and seven Members of Pennsylvania’s General Assembly. The Court’s decision, concurring opinions, and the FPC/FPF amicus brief can be viewed at www.firearmspolicy.org/legal.At issue was whether someone’s carrying of a firearm could be used as reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct, and thus justification for police to conduct a “stop-and-frisk” of the gun owner. The court ruled in Hicks that such searches and seizures, in the absence of other evidence are completely unlawful.
The coalition’s brief, which was relied on heavily in the majority opinion, argued that the Pennsylvania and federal constitutions prohibit searches and seizures based on a suspicion of criminal activity due to carrying a firearm. According to the brief, “As protected by the Second and Fourth Amendments to the United States Constitution and [] the Pennsylvania Constitution . . . the mere open or conceal carrying of a firearm cannot establish reasonable articulable suspicion of criminal conduct, in the absence of additional indicia of unlawful activity.”
The Court agreed, noting “that the government may not target and seize specific individuals without any particular suspicion of wrongdoing, then force them to prove that they are not committing crimes.”

More at: https://www.firearmspolicy.org/hicks-victory

[RonZeplin]

A defeat for the Donald Trump/David Hogg evil agenda of, take the guns. :trophy: A couple of anti-American scofflaw libtards. :check:


Donald Trump’s stop-and-frisk policy raises eyebrows
(http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/donald-trumps-stop-and-frisk-policy-raises-eyebrows)
At a Fox News event this week, Donald Trump seemed to endorse taking “stop-and-frisk” policies to a national level (http://www.nbcnews.com/card/trump-stop-frisk-needed-stop-violence-black-communities-n652121) to address urban crime. “I would do stop-and-frisk,” the Republican said. “I think you have to. We did it in New York, it worked incredibly well and you have to be proactive and, you know, you really help people sort of change their mind automatically.”

Of course, what Trump doesn’t seem to understand is that stop-and-frisk didn’t work (http://www.nbcnews.com/card/no-stop-frisk-didnt-work-incredibly-well-n652111) “incredibly well” at all, and when challenged in the courts, the policy was ruled unconstitutional (http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/more-stop-frisk-trump-s-suggestion-overlooks-major-problems-tactic-n652671).

When Trump recently told African-American communities, “What do you have to lose?” he neglected to mention the answer: Fourth Amendment rights.

Nearly as important, however, is how the Republican candidate tried to clean up his latest mess, calling into Fox News yesterday to elaborate (http://www.nbcnews.com/card/stop-frisk-wasnt-effective-wasnt-just-about-guns-n652496) on his preferred approach.

“[Police officers are] proactive, and if they see a person possibly with a gun or they think they have a gun, they will see the person and they’ll look and they’ll take the gun away. They’ll stop, they’ll frisk and they’ll take the gun away, and they won’t have anything to shoot with.”