ShareThis Page

Judge tosses charges in WCCC concealed weapon case

Renatta Signorini
| Tuesday, March 28, 2017, 5:03 p.m.

A district judge dismissed a gun-related charge Tuesday against a Ligonier Township man accused of taking an unlawfully concealed firearm to Westmoreland County Community College for a dentist appointment.

District Judge L. Anthony Bompiani dismissed the case for a lack of evidence but had stern words for Thomas Foster Altman.

“If you claim to have a great respect” for the Constitution and law, “then don't come in here and make a mockery of it,” Bompiani told Altman, 66, at the conclusion of an hour-long preliminary hearing that was marked with numerous objections.

“Your case is being dismissed because I don't think the commonwealth met its burden,” Bompiani said.

Prosecutors alleged that Altman didn't have a permit to carry a concealed weapon on the Hempfield campus on Nov. 14. Assistant District Attorney Adam Barr withdrew a count of possession of a weapon on school property. A disorderly conduct charge was dismissed.

A dental hygiene student reported to police that Altman placed a holstered Kel-Tec 9mm handgun on the counter at his appointment, testified Park Police Officer Trisha Lehner. The pistol was seized by Lehner and Park Police Officer David Sargent and described by both witnesses on the stand.

“(Sargent is) postulating that it was a firearm. The witness is not qualified to make that determination,” said Altman, who did not have an attorney and lobbed numerous objections — the majority of which were overruled.

He questioned the training and oaths taken by the park police officers and whether they were United States citizens.

Many of the prosecution's objections to Altman's line of questioning were sustained.

“I object,” Altman said when one officer identified him as the man in the clinic.

“On what grounds?” Bompiani asked.

“It's not me,” Altman replied.

“Overruled,” Bompiani said.

Altman claimed Bompiani didn't have jurisdiction to hear the case and called Sargent an “alleged police officer” who stole his gun. The college campus neighbors the property where Bompiani's court office is located.

“On the record, I object to everything so far and ongoing,” Altman said.

Lehner testified that she waited with Altman at a pickup truck at the college while Sargent determined that Altman did not have a permit to carry a concealed weapon and arrested him. The holster did not have a clip or belt loop, Sargent testified.

Bompiani said he dismissed the case because prosecutors didn't show evidence that Altman had the firearm concealed.

Barr argued that the court could conclude the weapon had been concealed because Altman had to travel to get to the campus and because the holster didn't have a clip or belt loops that would allow him to openly carry it.

“Obviously, the defendant got to the dental clinic somehow,” Barr argued.

“Yeah, but that's asking the court to speculate,” Bompiani replied.

Altman completed six months in the Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition, or ARD, program for first-time, nonviolent offenders after police said he carried a concealed weapon into Greensburg's Social Security offices in September 2011.

Security officers at that time discovered Altman had a black Kel-Tec 9 mm handgun in his pants pocket, according to a criminal complaint. Court records show that authorities were to return the firearm after he completed the ARD program in October 2012.

Offenders who complete the program can have their records expunged.

Renatta Signorini is a Tribune-Review staff writer.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.