MNGunTalk.com

At about 2:30 in the morning of 28 June, 2014, Michael Hicks was at a convenience store in Allentown, Pennsylvania. Hicks had a valid concealed carry permit, and had a handgun in an outside the waistband holster, concealed by his shirt.

Open carry is generally legal in Pennsylvania, but it is not legal to open carry in a vehicle. This limits the practicality of open carry on a regular basis.

Video surveillance of the scene showed Hicks adjusting his shirt, briefly allowing the handgun to be seen before approaching the convenience store. Hicks goes about his business, but minutes later is stopped by police.

[...]

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court found that Hicks Fourth Amendment rights had been violated, and there was no legitimate reason for the police to stop him that early morning in June.

[...]

For several decades, there has been an assumption in law enforcement circles, backed up by court decisions, that merely the suspicion of a person carrying a concealed weapon was sufficient to allow for a “stop and frisk” of that person.

Law enforcement agencies generally preferred to have that power. I was taught, decades ago, somewhat informally, to always stop and search a suspect if I thought they might have a concealed weapon. I was told, by the officer who was teaching me, that “he had never heard of a judge who threw out the evidence if a weapon was found”.

With the success of the concealed carry movement in partially restoring Second Amendment rights, we are seeing a reversal of that policy. The reason is simple: concealed carry is becoming common and accepted.

The reason is simple: concealed carry is becoming common and accepted.

yukonjasper wrote:What other factors were in play with Hicks? Do we know his race, was he profiled based upon it?

Given the incidence of race on race violence, it seems perfectly logical that good guys be prepared to interact with the bad guys in their environment. I don't discriminate based on ethnicity, behavior is my only filter.

yukonjasper wrote:What other factors were in play with Hicks? Do we know his race, was he profiled based upon it?

Given the incidence of race on race violence, it seems perfectly logical that good guys be prepared to interact with the bad guys in their environment. I don't discriminate based on ethnicity, behavior is my only filter.

In this case, Hicks was and is a black man. Skin color was not a part of the legal case. It is part of the social construct. This case shows black people have the same legal rights as others. More and more black people are exercising their Second Amendment rights. The exercise of Second Amendment rights is a key indicator of equal treatment under the law.

jdege wrote:

yukonjasper wrote:What other factors were in play with Hicks? Do we know his race, was he profiled based upon it?

Given the incidence of race on race violence, it seems perfectly logical that good guys be prepared to interact with the bad guys in their environment. I don't discriminate based on ethnicity, behavior is my only filter.

In this case, Hicks was and is a black man. Skin color was not a part of the legal case. It is part of the social construct. This case shows black people have the same legal rights as others. More and more black people are exercising their Second Amendment rights. The exercise of Second Amendment rights is a key indicator of equal treatment under the law.

Ghost wrote:Didn’t gun control start as a method of keeping guns out of the hands of blacks?

Holland&Holland wrote:

yukonjasper wrote:What other factors were in play with Hicks? Do we know his race, was he profiled based upon it?

Given the incidence of race on race violence, it seems perfectly logical that good guys be prepared to interact with the bad guys in their environment. I don't discriminate based on ethnicity, behavior is my only filter.

So you for stop an frisk if it involves race and a permit?

Ghost wrote:

jdege wrote:

yukonjasper wrote:What other factors were in play with Hicks? Do we know his race, was he profiled based upon it?

Given the incidence of race on race violence, it seems perfectly logical that good guys be prepared to interact with the bad guys in their environment. I don't discriminate based on ethnicity, behavior is my only filter.

In this case, Hicks was and is a black man. Skin color was not a part of the legal case. It is part of the social construct. This case shows black people have the same legal rights as others. More and more black people are exercising their Second Amendment rights. The exercise of Second Amendment rights is a key indicator of equal treatment under the law.

Didn’t gun control start as a method of keeping guns out of the hands of blacks?

Fourteenth Amendment: Ratified July 9, 1868
Even as 1863’s Emancipation Proclamation freed all slaves within the United States, racially biased gun control continued through Black Codes in states like Mississippi, Louisiana and Alabama. Internationally, the Paris Anti-Slavery Conference of 1867 condemned the practices, highlighting that in “the States,” even “freedmen” were “forbidden to own or bear fire-arms, and thus were rendered defenceless against assault.” Congress abolished this discriminatory gun control with the most controversial of the three Reconstruction Amendments. While the Thirteenth abolished slavery and the 15th forbade racial discrimination in elections, the Fourteenth Amendment provided “to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Finally, the Fourteenth guaranteed all Americans, regardless of color or appearance, their Second Amendment right to bear arms.