search
top

The Menace of Armed Public Urination

They must be getting pretty desperate in the Philly media to highlight “Florida Loophole” stories, given the best they managed to round up for this article was a pair of public tinklers. Clearly Florida permitees are causing chaos on the streets of Philadelphia, or at least contributing to that dank urine smell that permeates some parts of the city.

I’m sympathetic to the notion that maybe a guy with ten prior arrests isn’t the kind of guy you want carrying a firearm in public, but the solution to that is to seek convictions, and as we’ve pointed out many times here, the City of Philadelphia is not in the habit of that until you basically kill somebody. Otherwise it’s catch and release.

10 Responses to “The Menace of Armed Public Urination”

  1. asdf says:

    I’m no fan of disparate impact theory, but if there ever was a case for it this is it. It is nearly impossible for inner city black men *not* to have an arrest record. They are scrutinized much more closely by police – perhaps in many cases with good reason, but this also makes them much more likely to be arrested when the police cast too wide of a net. “Stop and Frisk” only happens in black neighborhoods, just in case nobody ever noticed…

    PFA orders are all too common in the ghetto as well. When I was picking up my permit from the PPD, I couldn’t help but notice that just about every single black man there had to explain the circumstances of PFA’s they had against them in the past. I can’t help but suspect that most of these PFA’s were the result of “baby momma drama”, rather than legitimate protection from abuse.

    And from the article, I’m assuming the guy who was legally carrying with a FL permit, who was arrested eleven times in the past, that at least one of those arrests was the 2007 incident where he successfully sued the city. Why doesn’t the article make this clear? It’s pretty safe to assume that the other 10 arrests are likely to be just as frivolous as the other. And notice that the article says that his permit was revoked and pistol confiscated simply for *traffic* violations and because he was “in the presence” of a man who possessed a stolen gun. How might anybody reasonably know if a person in their presence has a stolen gun? Beats me…. but it hardly seems like a legitimate reason to revoke an LTCF *AND* confiscate a firearm.

  2. asdf says:

    Getting rid of the ‘character and reputation’ clause should have been our #1 priority – it’s far more important than ‘castle doctrine’ or anything else. At the very least, we need to define much more narrowly what makes a person ‘likely to act in a manner that is dangerous’. As it stands now, the PPD can decide that question however they wish, and it is obvious that they are looking for ANY excuse they can to deny LTCFs to as many people as they can.

  3. I can somewhat see the point of the article. If you live in Pennsylvania, get a license from your home state, and don’t recognize out of state permits. If the character and reputation clause is being abused, narrow it substantially to take away this abuse potential.

  4. I can somewhat see the point of the article. If you live in Pennsylvania, get a license from your home state, and don’t recognize out of state permits for Pennsylvania residents. If the character and reputation clause is being abused, narrow it substantially to take away this abuse potential.

    • Sebastian says:

      I’m willing to deal with the Florida issue in that context, and only that context. As it stands now, Florida permits are cheaper than appealing an unjust permit denial by the PPD.

      • You might be able to reach a deal on this: no longer recognize out-of-state permits for Penn. residents AND create a far more precise definition of reasons for refusal. Both sides get something that they want, and have a legitimate case for: make it easier for residents to get permits, and prevent Penn. residents who can’t get permits for good reason from carrying.

        • asdf says:

          @Clayton, it sounds reasonable, but would be a decision for the State government to make, as a whole state. Philly doesn’t get to just make up its own rules as they have been trying to do.

          • asdf says:

            Another idea is to remove the local issuing authority from the equation. I mean, the very same person who was just denied a permit in Philly for ‘character and reputation’ would have been issued a permit if he lived in Montgomery County, for example. And the Montgomery County-issued permit would allow him to carry in Philly. So why don’t we just have the state issue permits directly? It’s the only way to ensure that all PA residents are treated equally.

  5. asdf says:

    Oh, and the comments section seems to have been erased. It’s nowhere to be found. Most of the comments were not within the range of acceptable opinion, I guess.

  6. Guav says:

    Noice how the article states that:

    “Stewart’s permit was obtained through the so-called Florida loophole, a policy that […] allows Pennsylvania residents to get a permit through the mail from Florida.”

    But it also states that he has a prior traffic violation from FL, meaning he likely obtained the permit in person, not “through the mail.”

top