‘Stop-and-Frisk’ of Gun Owners Opposed by Gun Rights Groups

Stop and Frisk
‘Stop-and-Frisk’ of Gun Owners Opposed by Gun Rights Groups

HARRISBURG, Pa. -(Ammoland.com)- Today, attorney Joshua Prince of Civil Rights Defense Firm, P.C., filed an important amici curiae (“friends of the court”) brief in a Pennsylvania Supreme Court case that will impact gun owners throughout the Commonwealth, including more than one million people who have been issued a license to carry a concealed weapon in the state and millions more Americans who can legally carry there under a “reciprocity” agreement or state “open carry” rules.

“In this case, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court will be deciding whether the mere open or concealed carrying of a firearm – in the absence of any criminal conduct – is sufficient to establish reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct,” attorney Prince explained. “Simply put, the Supreme Court intends to decide whether law-abiding citizens can be harassed and interrogated by police for merely open or conceal carrying a firearm.”

The brief, submitted on behalf of numerous members of the Pennsylvania General Assembly as well as civil rights advocacy organizations Firearms Policy Coalition (“FPC”), Firearms Policy Foundation (“FPF”), and Firearm Owners Against Crime (“FOAC”), argues that “the mere open or conceal carrying of a firearm cannot establish reasonable articulable suspicion of criminal conduct” and that, otherwise, “the unintended consequences would result in law enforcement having reasonable suspicion to stop almost every person encountered, since most, if not all, objects possessed or utilized by citizens can be utilized either for lawful or unlawful purposes.”

“We believe that ‘stop-and-frisk’ policies that harass gun owners who carry for self-defense, like the one at the core of this case, are unconstitutional, bad public policy, and dangerous,” said FPC President and FPF Chairman Brandon Combs. “We were delighted to join and provide funding towards this important brief to protect the civil rights of millions of law-abiding gun owners.”

A copy of the amici brief can be viewed on their website.

The docket report for the case of Commonwealth v. Hicks, 56 MAP 2017, can be accessed at the Court’s Web site here.

Firearms Policy CoalitionAbout Firearms Policy Coalition:

Firearms Policy Coalition is a 501(c)4 grassroots nonprofit organization. FPC’s mission is to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, especially the fundamental, individual Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

For more information, visit their website.

Firearms Policy Foundation

About Firearms Policy Foundation:

Firearms Policy Foundation is a 501(c)3 grassroots nonprofit organization. FPF’s mission is to defend the Constitution of the United States and the People’s rights, privileges and immunities deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition, especially the inalienable, fundamental, and individual right to keep and bear arms.

For more information, visit their website.

Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Bill Gray

Stop and frisk is legal if four standards are met. There must be reasonable and articulable suspicion that a crime has been committed, is being committed or is about to be committed. Then, there must be reasonable and articulable suspicion that the suspect is armed (a given in open carry) AND that he is dangerous. This is all paraphrased (and real close to a quote from memory of Terry v Ohio). So, even if the first three elements are present, a pat down is not legal without evidence that the detainee is dangerous. Robbery nearby, matches the description/direction of travel,… Read more »


@BG, that’s all very interesting but in the real world the police do what they want to, law be damned. “The exercise of our right to be left alone, and this is a constitutional right, exists only in judicial decisions. It’s never existed on the street or in our cars. When a couple of cops stops a person on the street and demand that a person identify themself, does anyone believe that it is “merely” a request that they have an absolute right to ignore? Does anyone believe that if they ignored the request and walked away, that would be… Read more »


Well, law & order conservatives, now stop & frisk comes back to bite you! You should have heeded the warnings of the Founders. Here’s a few thoughts on the subject https://youtu.be/aq8m_K16ghg

Wild Bill

, Wasn’t the stop and frisk pat down based upon reasonable suspicion brought to us by Mapp v Ohio, not some unnamed group of law and order conservatives? And to call seeing a person exercising his constitutional and statutory rights is hardly reasonable. So it does not fit the constraints of Mapp v Ohio.

Wild Bill

Ooops, my error. Terry v Ohio. A non-intrusive stop based upon reasonable suspicion. Not Mapp v Ohio, but rather Terry v Ohio. Sorry


@WB, what I was getting at is that many conservatives are all for expanded police power.

Jim Wildrick Jr

Dosen’t surprise me at all.The anti gunners will always test the waters.Another reason to vote out Wolfe and Casey next year.Also replace the liberal judges in the commonwealth that follow the constitution and not legislate from the bench like California.

The other Jim

Good suit. Thought PA was doing better too… To sell/buy privately you have to bring in a third party, the FFL, and both buyer and seller travel to the FFL and pay fees to the FFL. A real private sale breaker.


Here I thought Pa was doing ok on firearms rights.
All of this stupidity would end if the jack booted thugs that call themselves LEO’s would say enough and join the side of LEGAL firearms owners and stop the arrests. But no, the LEO’s who need to prove their manhood is bigger than the rest of us want to make our lives as painful as possible.
Notice I am not calling ALL LEO’s jackbooted thugs, but you know who you are….

Joseph Martin

Stop and frisk is profiling and you all know how the liberals go ballistic whenever they believe anyone, even a middle-eastern guy wearing a keffiyeh on his head and boarding an airliner, is picked out of an airport crowd and frisked.


But they can not stop someone and ask for papers for proof of legal citizenship.


What does being a middle-eastern guy wearing a keffiyeh on his head and boarding an airliner have to do with anything? Are you suggesting that any middle-eastern guy wearing a keffiyeh on his head and boarding an airliner is automatically a United States hating, bomb packing, terrorist simply because he’s a Middle Eastern guy wearing a keffiyeh and boarding an airplane? That would be kind like me saying anybody who’s a conservative is an asshole, simply because they are a conservative. And while I would say that being a conservative generally tends to make people assholes, I would not say… Read more »

Joseph Martin

Chuck if you really don’t understand my comments it’s not me who is not smart, it’s you. So that makes you either an ignorant or a stupid troll. I, and I’m sure everyone else, would appreciate it if you would stop commenting on my posts (and likely everyone else’s) unless you have actually have something intelligent, meaningful or pertinent to say. Your spurious comments (attacks) are juvenile and contribute nothing.

Jericho Joe

Isn’t this little detail the same as the “stop and frisk” battle in New York City? Why are the liberal class now thinking it’s ok? I guess the number of concealed carriers is beginning to outnumber those who carry to assist in their criminal enterprise. Another example of how upside down the progressives thinking really is.

Green Mtn. Boy

Stop and Frisk is UnConstitutional, in Pennsylvania or any of the other 49 states,Next.


You are 100% right.