Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Bolmac t1_jbrnyx0 wrote

Pennsylvania law is very clear:

"any person may kill any dog which he sees in the act of pursuing or wounding or killing any domestic animal, including household pets, or pursuing, wounding or attacking human beings, whether or not such a dog bears a required license tag. There is no liability on such persons in damages or otherwise for such killing."

56

[deleted] t1_jbrzgtv wrote

[deleted]

−41

somberblurb t1_jbs2d4w wrote

The agent owned the dog being attacked and is allowed to carry a firearm under federal law

30

Shad0wSmurf t1_jbs2jeg wrote

Which is incorrect. Only on duty.

−36

somberblurb t1_jbs2zm1 wrote

Nope. Look up LEOSA.

20

Shad0wSmurf t1_jbs48kw wrote

(36 C.F.R. §§ 2.4(e) & (h), 18 U.S.C. § 922(q)) allow for individuals carrying concealed in accordance with the laws of the state in which the federal park or GFSZ is located to carry concealed in them*; however, an individual carrying under LEOSA is carrying under FEDERAL LAW and not in accordance with the laws of the state they are in. What this means is that you are NOT exempted from carrying a concealed firearm in these areas UNLESS you are on official duty or possess a valid and qualifying state issued concealed carry permit.

Link NRA

−31

chumpyis t1_jbs862c wrote

https://philadelphiapa.permitium.com/ccw/application?permittype=new

You can concealed carry in Philadelphia.

25

Shad0wSmurf t1_jbs8bxz wrote

Not the issue we are discussing. Thanks though

−17

chumpyis t1_jbs8e3t wrote

Not a gun free zone. Enjoy the downvotes.

24

Shad0wSmurf t1_jbs8kay wrote

I'll enjoy every single one.

1000+ feet from every school is a school zone. Sounds like all of Philly 😉

Illegal unless on duty even driving past a school "JUST" claiming Leosa

−7

chumpyis t1_jbs9kx4 wrote

There’s a school every 1000 feet? Damn. No wonder the district is underfunded. Do you even live here. Gtfo

14

Shad0wSmurf t1_jbs9rcf wrote

You're obviously unable to comprehend what a school is, or ever been in Philadelphia. Glad to hear your input though! Thanks for adding nothing to the conversation buddy!

−1

chumpyis t1_jbsa4if wrote

Yes, as a lifetime resident I don’t know anything about Philadelphia. Goodnight troll.

14

Shad0wSmurf t1_jbsadi1 wrote

Good night my fair citizen of Grandiose delusions

−1

JesusOfBeer t1_jbsycs6 wrote

Oh you mean the “Gun-Free School Zone Act” which was deemed unconstitutional in the 90’s?

Stop making shit up.

2

CltAltAcctDel t1_jbsex23 wrote

r/confidentlywrong

PA has the Uniform Firearm Act which establishes firearm laws for the entire state to include Philadelpia. Philadelphia is not gun free zone neither in law or in practice.

https://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/LI/consCheck.cfm?txtType=HTM&ttl=18&div=0&chpt=61&mobile_choice=suppress

6106 (2)(b)5 allows federal agents to carry concealed anywhere in the state.

Also, LEOSA doesn’t require officers to be on duty. Among other things, it allows retired law enforcement officers who by definition can’t be on duty to carry concealed anywhere in the US.

14

Shad0wSmurf t1_jbsf3td wrote

You're arguing with the NRA not me

https://le.nra.org/understanding-leosa/off-limit-areas/

1

CltAltAcctDel t1_jbsmn6n wrote

The federal agent wasn’t carrying pursuant to LEOSA. She was carrying under 6106. The federal gun free school zone allows states to license individual to carry in those areas. PA law allows people to carry in those areas pursuant the Uniform Firearms Act. Firearm possession on school property is covered under section 912 of the PA crimes code. There is no distance buffer in 912.

Your claim that Philly is a gun free zone is dead wrong. As is your claim that she is covered only on duty. Section 6106 has her covered.

12

Shad0wSmurf t1_jbstwce wrote

Even if she doesn't have a permit?

1

CltAltAcctDel t1_jbsuyqa wrote

6106 exempts her from permit requirements. I pointed you to the section.

Duly authorized federal employees are exempt from permits. Duly authorized doesn’t require her to be on duty. Merely being authorized to carry by her agency is sufficient. Have badge; can carry

7

Shad0wSmurf t1_jbsxirk wrote

Okay, no, I follow you. If federal employees are exempted from permits then why is there distinction in LEOSA - which you said didn't apply -

  • (36 C.F.R. §§ 2.4(e) & (h), 18 U.S.C. § 922(q)) allow for individuals carrying concealed in accordance with the laws of the state in which the federal park or GFSZ is located to carry concealed in them*; however, an individual carrying under LEOSA is carrying under FEDERAL LAW and not in accordance with the laws of the state they are in.

  • What this means is that you are NOT exempted from carrying a concealed firearm in these areas UNLESS you are on official duty or possess a valid and qualifying state issued concealed carry permit.

Because if they DON'T have a license, LEOSA which is the authorization to carry by the Federal Government, for federal employees, then they would need a permit to carry in those zones in the states that require Concealed Carry being off duty is not in the employees authorized capacity?

EDIT: PA CSA 18. 912(c) - I'm assuming you're referring to " * or other lawful duty"

if they don't have a pa permit and are not in the scope of their duties, do they have to observe federal law or state. Meaning do they need to carry under federal law with LEOSA because they don't have a permit in the state and are subject to the laws of the state they are in, and are NOT exempted from GFZ with LEOSA?

−1

CltAltAcctDel t1_jbt6p3v wrote

LEOSA exists mainly for state and local police to carry off-duty or retired in all states but that has limitations. It’s fairly new and federal agents were carrying all over the place prior to it being enacted.

She was carrying under 6106. LEOSA doesn’t enter into because she’s legally carrying under PA law. She’s carrying legally by being a duly authorized federal agent. She is a duly authorized federal agent 24/7/365 until she separates employment

PA does not have a buffer on school zones. That was the purpose of referencing 912. Federal gun free zone law says the buffer is 1000ft but people can carry within that border if states allow it. PA only excludes the actual property of the school from carrying. It does that through 6106 and 912 because 6206 authorizes people to carry and 912 has no buffer.

2

ficknerich t1_jbsq4t5 wrote

Just because I think the article might be confusing, when it says that she shot "the other dog", they're not referring to the one of two dogs passing by that didn't attack. She shot the attacking dog, which was a pitbull.

> Roh said surveillance video indicated that Maguire had been sitting on a bench when the pit bull rushed forward and pulled the dog off her lap, causing Maguire to intervene and try to separate the animals before drawing her weapon and shooting the pit bull in its hindquarters at close range.

From The Inquirer.

13

Shad0wSmurf t1_jbsqf6n wrote

That would have been nice to have in the original article. Dogs lunge all the time when walking past other dogs.

Thanks

−3

defusted t1_jbst6kc wrote

Everything you just said is wrong.

First, if it was a service dog it never would have left the owners side. But that doesn't matter because the agent isn't going to say "pardon me, is your dog that's currently mauling my dog a service animal?"

Second, having a gun in Philadelphia is perfectly legal for anyone, all you need is a conceal and carry permit. I'm not sure what other dogs on leash has anything to do with that.

Third, I don't know if you know this, but when a pitbull attacks it's almost impossible to make it stop.

What you should be asking is why was the owner of the pitbull ignoring it's violent behavior. Neighbors of the dog said this wasn't the first attack.

13

Shad0wSmurf t1_jbstmjp wrote

Anyone can, if they have a permit. Nothing said they did. Never even mentioned it. And what you're referring to was a direct quote from the article...

0

defusted t1_jbstzmf wrote

>not even talking about how illegal having the gun in Philadelphia that is

This you?

9

Shad0wSmurf t1_jbsu42n wrote

The dogs. That's quoted from the article. You asked what that had to do with it. It was from the article, and again, it never mentioned her having a permit.

−4

Illustrious-Elk-8525 t1_jbshdd3 wrote

If the agent had a PA carry permit, which is easier to obtain than it is to obtain a residential parking permit, would your opinion be different?

8

Shad0wSmurf t1_jbshe5c wrote

Absolutely

1

Illustrious-Elk-8525 t1_jbshxdv wrote

Fair enough. I don’t really support LEOSA or law enforcement in general but I believe legally many law enforcement officers are able to self activate into being “on duty”. Not sure if it applies to an FBI agent defending her dog tbh though.

5

V_Cobra21 t1_jbumc7z wrote

It’s easy to obtain if you’re background is clean

1

Shad0wSmurf t1_jbshkbk wrote

It's like I kill a dog with my Ford fiesta and because I'm a Ford employee, they don't check if I can drive. If they had a permit, no issues, but the fact you asked is a bigger discussion that it took this long for someone to ask that simple question which would squash all other dissenting opinions

−2