Lost my wallet today with my LTCF inside.

[Bruce]

Originally Posted by HiredGoon

To clear this up:

From the PA Uniform Firearms Act


18 Pa.C.S. § 6122: Proof of license and exception

(a) General rule.--When carrying a firearm concealed on or about one's person or in a vehicle, an individual licensed to carry a firearm shall, upon lawful demand of a law enforcement officer, produce the license for inspection. Failure to produce such license either at the time of arrest or at the preliminary hearing shall create a rebuttable presumption of nonlicensure.

Again - as I posted three times already - the law uses the word "produce"; a citizen must "produce" a license.

To the best of my knowledge, there is nothing (in the law) that describes the manner of "production"; nor is there any law that states that a license "card" must be carried - or that, specifically, a "card" must be "produced".

I have already gone over what *might* lawfully constitute "production" of a license without having a 'proof of license' "card".

I'm really not trying to debate this - I am only stating the fact (as far as I know it to be true - pending proof it is not) that there is no law that compels someone licensed to carry firearms must carry a license "card" (or "placard", or even a law containing wording to the effect of: "must carry proof of licensure").

I am not (I REPEAT: NOT) suggesting people should not carry their license "card" (or a photocopy - as gnbrotz suggests) with them at all times they are exercising the 'privileges' afforded by their LTCF, I am only stating that no law exits that compels you to carry one.
.

[dm_n_stuff]

Originally Posted by Bruce

Again - as I posted three times already - the law uses the word "produce"; a citizen must "produce" a license.

To the best of my knowledge, there is nothing (in the law) that describes the manner of "production"; nor is there any law that states that a license "card" must be carried - or that, specifically, a "card" must be "produced".

I have already gone over what *might* lawfully constitute "production" of a license without having a 'proof of license' "card".

I'm really not trying to debate this - I am only stating the fact (as far as I know it to be true - pending proof it is not) that there is no law that compels someone licensed to carry firearms must carry a license "card" (or "placard", or even a law containing wording to the effect of: "must carry proof of licensure").

I am not (I REPEAT: NOT) suggesting people should not carry their license "card" (or a photocopy - as gnbrotz suggests) with them at all times they are exercising the 'privileges' afforded by their LTCF, I am only stating that no law exits that compels you to carry one.
.

Other than producing the card with your photo, that indicates you are Licensed to carry, what would you suggest as an alternative?

Do you think "telling the officer" constitutes proof, and is producing a license to the officer?

Let's look at the language. The code refers to the card as a license, not as a certificate of license, but as a license. A police officer can demand you produce your license, failure to do so creates an assumption of non-licensure.

Now you can argue long and hard otherwise, but actually the language is quite clear, and is no doubt supported by several court cases and convictions, although I do not have access to court files to prove it.

It's not like this is new language. And it is clear that the law implies that the paper license is what they consider your License to Carry a concealed weapon, and that no amount of legal wiggling, should you be caught out without it, is gonna save your hide.

Often times in the law, there is an assumption of normal usage. If the police ask you for your driver's license, what do you produce? A certificate, issued by the state, that indicates you are a licensed driver in the state of Pennsylvania. It's that little plastic card with your photo on it, your license number on it, etc. Your "driver's license."

Same would apply here. Common usage for license is the certificate issued by the state that indicates you are licensed.

Here you go, from Websters, license: "a certificate, tag, plate, etc., giving proof of such permission; official permit: a driver's license."

Produce :"to bring forward; present to view or notice; exhibit"

Again, normal usage, correct interpretation, no gray area.

Therefore the law demands that you present to view or notice, exhibit, a certificate giving proof of such permission. That would be that little plastic card the sheriff sold ya.

To think otherwise, or to test the system with some hokey explanation of the license's existence is gonna put your butt in a tight place.

DM

[gnbrotz]

Originally Posted by dm_n_stuff

Other than producing the card with your photo, that indicates you are Licensed to carry, what would you suggest as an alternative?

Originally Posted by dm_n_stuff

Therefore the law demands that you present to view or notice, exhibit, a certificate giving proof of such permission. That would be that little plastic card the sheriff sold ya.

Except for the fact the despite supposed legislative "uniformity", LTCFs are far from such (UNLIKE driver's licenses).

Many do not have photos. Many are not a plastic card. They come in various sizes, and MANY Sheriffs have told licensees to do exactly as I suggested: copy the original, (sometimes suggesting the licensee resize and/or laminate it themselves if they wish), and place the original somewhere safe.

I would submit that it's virtually impossible for any LEO to be 100% sure if the document they may be presented is "original" or something else. The important thing is that when they call in the unique identifying number, that the system return that that particular license is valid.

[biggs88]

Originally Posted by Bruce

Again - as I posted three times already - the law uses the word "produce"; a citizen must "produce" a license.

Yes, it says you must produce it.

Originally Posted by Bruce

To the best of my knowledge, there is nothing (in the law) that describes the manner of "production"; nor is there any law that states that a license "card" must be carried - or that, specifically, a "card" must be "produced".

Well they want proof. So you can either "produce" an abstract idea of being allowed to carry, or you can produce a card(LTCF) for proof. See what works.

Originally Posted by Bruce

I have already gone over what *might* lawfully constitute "production" of a license without having a 'proof of license' "card".

What is that? If a cop needs to know if your licensed, a speech about how you are from the county you live in is not going to cut it.
That is why you get a "card". Its not to pick your teeth with, it's to prove your allowed to CC.

Originally Posted by Bruce

I'm really not trying to debate this - I am only stating the fact (as far as I know it to be true - pending proof it is not) that there is no law that compels someone licensed to carry firearms must carry a license "card" (or "placard", or even a law containing wording to the effect of: "must carry proof of licensure").

It is spelled out stating you must produce your LTCF if lawfully requested by an LEO. End of story.

Originally Posted by Bruce

I am not (I REPEAT: NOT) suggesting people should not carry their license "card" (or a photocopy - as gnbrotz suggests) with them at all times they are exercising the 'privileges' afforded by their LTCF, I am only stating that no law exits that compels you to carry one.

Their may not be a law for all I know stating you must have it when you carry. But if you do not have it when a LEO requests it, you have a problem. Spelled out in other posters citied Law.

[rmodel65]

Originally Posted by gnbrotz

Except for the fact the despite supposed legislative "uniformity", LTCFs are far from such (UNLIKE driver's licenses).

Many do not have photos. Many are not a plastic card. They come in various sizes, and MANY Sheriffs have told licensees to do exactly as I suggested: copy the original, (sometimes suggesting the licensee resize and/or laminate it themselves if they wish), and place the original somewhere safe.

I would submit that it's virtually impossible for any LEO to be 100% sure if the document they may be presented is "original" or something else. The important thing is that when they call in the unique identifying number, that the system return that that particular license is valid.

you should see GA GFL it look literally like something a kid made :P cops in Florida seem to think its a fake too lol

According to the deposition of Burkhead, Wright “was answering the questions” and “didn't refuse to answer anything.” (Doc. No. 41-3 at 21.) While Burkhead was questioning Wright, Walker was peering into Wright's vehicle and shining his flashlight into the interior of the car. ( Id. at 67-68.) After less than a minute had passed, Walker said “gun” to alert Burkhead to the presence of a firearm in the vehicle. ( Id. at 21, 66.) According to Wright, Burkhead “pulled his gun, put it in my face, yelling at me to, you know, get out of my Explorer.” FN1 (Doc. No. 41-2 at 71.) Burkhead asked Wright if he had identification and a gun permit, and Wright gave the officers his Georgia concealed weapon permit. ( Id.) Burkhead responded, “it looks like a fake :lol: ; and even if it was real, it's not valid in the State of Florida.” FN2 ( Id.) Burkhead then secured Wright by putting handcuffs on him and placing him in the back of the unmarked police vehicle. ( Id. at 50, 71; Doc. No. 41-3 at 22, 24.)

FN1. Burkhead denies pulling a gun on Wright. (Doc. No. 41-3 at 22.)

FN2. Burkhead stated that the gun permit provided by Wright “did not have a photograph on it,” was “flimsy,” looked like it had been “laminated ... at Wal-Mart or K-Mart,” had “no rigidness,” had uneven edges, and “was just like a piece of paper like somebody cut it out with a pair of scissors.” (Doc. No. 41-3 at 26-27, 52, 57.) :rotfl2:

. . .


After less than a minute, Walker alerted Burkhead to the presence of a gun in the car, and Wright contends that Burkhead drew his weapon and ordered Wright out of the vehicle. (Doc. No. 41-2 at 70-71; Doc. No. 41-3 at 21, 66.) The parties do not dispute that Wright gave Burkhead a document which Wright claimed was a Georgia concealed firearm permit. (Doc. No. 41-2 at 66, 71; Doc. No. 41-3 at 24-25.) Burkhead and Walker reviewed the document but determined that it was either fake or invalid in Florida, and Burkhead arrested Wright for carrying a concealed firearm without a valid permit in violation of § 790.01(2), Florida Statutes.

. . .

When law enforcement officers perform Terry stops, they are “authorized to take such steps as [a]re reasonably necessary to protect their personal safety and to maintain the status quo during the course of the stop.” United States v. Hensley, 469 U.S. 221, 235, 105 S.Ct. 675, 83 L.Ed.2d 604 (1985). In addition, officers are “entitled to seize evidence revealed in plain view in the course of the lawful stop” and to arrest passengers of a motor vehicle “when evidence discovered in plain view [gives] probable cause to believe the passenger[s] ha[ve] committed a crime ....” Id. (citing Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730, 103 S.Ct. 1535, 75 L.Ed.2d 502 (1983)). As the former Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals found, “A car is not a home. An automobile runs and stops on the public roads, where viewers may crawl under it or press their faces against its windows. Its exterior and much of its interior are within the ‘plain view’ of the casual or purposeful onlooker, and thus are not protected by the Fourth Amendment from searching eyes.” United States v. Polk, 433 F.2d 644, 647 (5th Cir.1970); see also United States v. Woods, 560 F.2d 660, 669 (5th Cir.1977) (“The plain view doctrine permits law enforcement officers the full use of their eyes in places the officers have a right to be.”); United States v. McDaniel, 550 F.2d 214, 218 (5th Cir.1977) (“The plain view doctrine applies to articles which can be seen through the door or window of an automobile.” (citing Nunez v. United States, 370 F.2d 538 (5th Cir.1967))).

It is undisputed that Walker observed a handgun in Wright's vehicle through the car window. As Wright testified during his deposition, “The officer on the passenger side saw I had my gun on the floorboard of the-of the Explorer in plain view, I would say, if he saw it.” (Doc. No. 41-2 at 50.) Upon further questioning about the location of the firearm, Wright agreed that “[i]t was in the middle, between the two seats” in the “[c]enter console” area “[o]n the floor.” ( Id. at 61-62.) He continued, “It's right there in between the driver's and the passenger's seat, forward but down.” ( Id. at 63.) Later, Wright was asked about the visibility through the windows of his vehicle:

Q. If the windows are rolled up, can someone see inside the car?

A. Yes, even at night. That's how the officer on the passenger side was able to look in and see [the gun] on the console.

( Id. at 100-01.) Based on these statements by Wright, his firearm was located in his vehicle in open view and could be seen from outside of the car. Walker's observation of the firearm through the window did not constitute a “search” of the vehicle, and even if it did, the search was a permissible security precaution during a lawful Terry stop. E.g., Hensley, 469 U.S. at 235.

C. Propriety of Arrest
Once Walker observed the firearm and located its presence, Burkhead ordered Wright out of the car and detained him. After Wright was in handcuffs, Burkhead returned to Wright's vehicle to secure the firearm. Burkhead described the location of the gun in the vehicle:

Q. After Mr. Wright got out of the vehicle you then went to look for the gun because of the alert by Sergeant Walker?

A. Yes.

Q. And where did you find the gun?

A. Underneath the driver's seat.

Q. And how did you find the gun? Was it out of the holster, in the holster, what form was it?

A. It was-the butt of the gun or handle, whatever you want to call it, it was towards where the driver-whoever would be in the car comport this way. So it was facing, the barrel was facing towards the back of the vehicle. It was laying on the floor. It was loosely in a holster, and if you looked straight down you might not have seen it, but it was sticking out. You know how the seat kind of curves a little bit? It was laying directly on the floor flat, right underneath the seat.

Q. Was it closer to the left side or the right side of the driver?

A. I would say it was probably right in the middle.

Q. Okay. Would it be accessible if the driver were to reach down and grab it?

A. Definitely.

Q. Do you recall if the holster was locked or snapped?

A. No, it was loose in the holster.

Q. Do you recall if it was loaded?

A. It was loaded.

Q. Do you recall if there was a round in the chamber?

A. Yes, there was.

Q. So not only was the magazine loaded, but there was a round in the chamber?

A. Yes.

(Doc. No. 41-3 at 64-65.) This testimony was not contracted by Wright; in fact, Wright admitted that his gun was loaded and stated that he usually did not keep the safety on. (Doc. No. 41-2 at 64-65.)

The relevant question is whether, based on these facts, it was reasonable for Burkhead to conclude that there was probable cause, or at least arguable probable cause, to arrest Wright. Burkhead asserts that this standard is met as to the charged offense of carrying a concealed weapon without a valid license in violation of § 790.01(2), Florida Statutes, as well as to the offense of open possession of a firearm in violation of § 790.053(1), Florida Statutes. The fact that Wright was not charged with open possession has no bearing on the Court's analysis because qualified immunity is based on an objective standard; therefore, the subjective intent of the arresting officer is irrelevant. Lee, 284 F.3d at 1195-96. “Indeed, when an officer makes an arrest, which is properly supported by probable cause to arrest for a certain offense, neither his subjective reliance on an offense for which no probable cause exists nor his verbal announcement of the wrong offense vitiates the arrest.” Id. at 1196 (quotation marks and alteration omitted) (quoting United States v. Saunders, 476 F.2d 5, 7 (5th Cir.1973)).

The standard for probable cause “is met when the facts and circumstances within the officer's knowledge, of which he or she has reasonably trustworthy information, would cause a prudent person to believe, under the circumstances shown, that the suspect has committed, is committing, or is about to commit an offense.” Lee, 284 F.3d at 1195 (quotation marks omitted) (quoting Rankin v. Evans, 133 F.3d 1425, 1435 (11th Cir.1998)). “Arguable probable cause exists where reasonable officers in the same circumstances and possessing the same knowledge as the Defendant could have believed that probable cause existed to arrest.” Id. (quotation marks and alteration omitted) (quoting Scarbrough v. Myles, 245 F.3d 1299, 1302 (11th Cir.2001)).

Whether there was probable cause to arrest Wright for carrying a concealed weapon after Wright presented Burkhead with an out-of-state concealed weapon permit is a more complicated question than whether probable cause existed to arrest Wright for openly carrying a weapon. Because qualified immunity applies if probable cause existed for either offense, the Court will first consider whether the simpler question determines the issue; that is, whether probable cause existed to arrest Wright for openly carrying a weapon.

The relevant statute provides that “it is unlawful for any person to openly carry on or about his or her person any firearm or electric weapon or device.” § 790.053(1), Fla. Stat. There are certain exceptions to this provision, such as when a person carries a firearm while lawfully engaging in, going to, or returning from a hunting expedition or target shooting. Id. § 790.25(3). Because it is Wright's burden to demonstrate that qualified immunity does not apply, Lee, 284 F.3d at 1194, he must show that no probable cause existed to believe he was committing the offense of openly carrying a firearm. Wright could have met this burden by demonstrating that one of the statutory exceptions was applicable. See § 790.25(3), Fla. Stat. However, Wright has neither argued nor presented any evidence that he was participating in any of the excepted activities. ( See Doc. Nos. 44, 44-2.) To the contrary, Wright testified that he was driving from the Florida Mall to his girlfriend's house when he stopped to call some friends to ask if they wanted to go to Cleo's Night Club with him. (Doc. No. 41-2 at 45, 50, 55-56.) According to Wright, his firearm was located on the center console, easily viewable through the window from outside of the vehicle. ( Id. at 50, 60-63.) Burkhead described the firearm as being loaded, readily accessible to Wright in the driver's seat, and placed loosely in a holster but not otherwise secured. (Doc. No. 41-3 at 64-65.) Based on these facts, a reasonably prudent officer would believe that Wright was openly possessing a firearm in violation of § 790.053(1) of the Florida Statutes. Because probable cause existed, Burkhead did not violate the Fourth Amendment by arresting Wright. Lee, 284 F.3d at 1194-95 (quoting Atwater v. City of Lago Vista, Tex., 532 U.S. 318, 354, 121 S.Ct. 1536, 149 L.Ed.2d 549 (2001)). There being no constitutional violation, Burkhead is entitled to qualified immunity.

[max384]

Originally Posted by Bruce

Again - as I posted three times already - the law uses the word "produce"; a citizen must "produce" a license.

To the best of my knowledge, there is nothing (in the law) that describes the manner of "production"; nor is there any law that states that a license "card" must be carried - or that, specifically, a "card" must be "produced".

I have already gone over what *might* lawfully constitute "production" of a license without having a 'proof of license' "card".

I'm really not trying to debate this - I am only stating the fact (as far as I know it to be true - pending proof it is not) that there is no law that compels someone licensed to carry firearms must carry a license "card" (or "placard", or even a law containing wording to the effect of: "must carry proof of licensure").

I am not (I REPEAT: NOT) suggesting people should not carry their license "card" (or a photocopy - as gnbrotz suggests) with them at all times they are exercising the 'privileges' afforded by their LTCF, I am only stating that no law exits that compels you to carry one.
.

I think you're leading people down a bad path. The law, as stated, sounds very cut and dry. I don't know how they could have written that more clearly.

You asked:

Could you please produce a citation (any law or 'case law' will do) that specifically states that you must have "proof" of your LTCF on your person?

HiredGoon produced that citation, then you jumped all over him... Maybe you meant something else by using the word 'produce?'

Thank you HiredGoon for your post. I believe that cleared things up for almost everyone. I am now convinced that I need to have my LTCF on me when carrying concealed.

[dm_n_stuff]

Originally Posted by gnbrotz

Except for the fact the despite supposed legislative "uniformity", LTCFs are far from such (UNLIKE driver's licenses).

Many do not have photos. Many are not a plastic card. They come in various sizes, and MANY Sheriffs have told licensees to do exactly as I suggested: copy the original, (sometimes suggesting the licensee resize and/or laminate it themselves if they wish), and place the original somewhere safe.

I would submit that it's virtually impossible for any LEO to be 100% sure if the document they may be presented is "original" or something else. The important thing is that when they call in the unique identifying number, that the system return that that particular license is valid.

Horse poop.

Generally you're going to be carrying in your own county, and I guarantee they know what the license should look like. Even if you aren't, if you produce a legit license, you're in the clear, even if it takes time to determine it is real.

Content in violation of forum rules removed. ~Staff

Language is clear, path is simple. Why does it always have to be a struggle to understand the law?


Content in violation of forum rules removed. ~Staff

Why is this so hard to understand? Why does it have to be a battle? Why not just obey the damn law and consider ourselves fortunate that we live in a state that allows us to CCW, and generally grants the license for a small fee, and without a ton of hassle.

I'm all for protecting your rights, but it doesn't have to be a constant tug of war.

DM

[HiredGoon]

Originally Posted by dm_n_stuff

If you don't have your card, you're in a world of trouble, and producing it later isn't gonna save your skin.

And, I repeat, with added emphasis:

From the PA Uniform Firearms Act


18 Pa.C.S. § 6122: Proof of license and exception

(a) General rule.--When carrying a firearm concealed on or about one's person or in a vehicle, an individual licensed to carry a firearm shall, upon lawful demand of a law enforcement officer, produce the license for inspection. Failure to produce such license either at the time of arrest or at the preliminary hearing shall create a rebuttable presumption of nonlicensure.

[Bruce]

Obviously I am expressing myself very, very poorly - because my points are just not getting across here. Either that - or you guys are purposefully trying to fool with me - or just didn't bother to actually read all the way through my posts. Or, some of you guys are just morons.

Since I like to think of you guys as nice, considerate, intelligent and conscientious fellows, I am inclined to believe my original supposition in the above paragraph - that I'm just not explaining myself well enough.

So - in the interest of no longer feeling foolish - I'll admit defeat.

Yes - the little card (or 'whatever' your sheriff issued you) is, in fact, a license. A license is a tangible thing and it is paper, or plastic, rectangular in shape and either has, or doesn't have, your picture on it. If you lose it - you've lost your license.

Upon re-re-re-re-reading the UFA, I, um... found the clause in it where the "code" emphatically states that the above mentioned/detailed license "must be carried on your person" and "showing/handing that card" (which *is* your license) is the only possible means of "presenting" your license when it is lawfully demanded by a cop.

I admit defeat.

"Uncle."

I was wrong.

I humbly apologize for "leading people astray" (or whatever bad thing it was that I was doing).
.

[PA Traveler]

Originally Posted by rmodel65

you should see GA GFL it look literally like something a kid made :P cops in Florida seem to think its a fake too lol

RM- I read through that transcript, which certainly seems to indicate that the LEO thought the document produced was "fake" and "not valid in FL" (I have to go look up GA / FL reciprocity or lack thereof).

What was the outcome of this case?