PGC says off-duty police officers cannot carry in a vehicle!

[Steve in PA]

In an ongoing debate on a certain PA hunting board over Sportman's Permits and the UFA, I came across this little ditty.

It is from Title 34 and states off-duty police officers are breaking the "law" by carrying a loaded firearm in a vehicle. So I guess every off-duty police officer in PA is breaking the "law" by carrying a loaded firearm in a vehicle. I also guess the PGC never heard of the UFA or think their "law" supercedes it.

http://www.pgc.state.pa.us/pgc/cwp/v...&q=151112#2503

Sec. 2503. Loaded firearms in vehicles.

(a) General rule. - Except as otherwise provided in this title, it is unlawful for any person to have a firearm of any kind in or on or against any conveyance propelled by mechanical power or its attachments at any time whether or not the vehicle or its attachment is in motion unless the firearm is unloaded.

(b) Exceptions. - This section shall not be construed to apply to:

(1) A police officer engaged in the performance of his official duty.

(2) A commission officer engaged in the performance of his duty.

(3) A person carrying a loaded pistol or revolver when in possession of a valid firearms license issued by the chief or head of any police force or the sheriff of a county when the license is issued for protection under 18 Pa.C.S. Ch. 61 Subch. A (relating to Uniform Firearms Act).

(4) Any person as defined in section 2121(c) (relating to killing game or wildlife to protect property) while on lands they control and when not hunting or trapping for game or wildlife.

(5) Any motorboat or other craft having a motor attached or any sailboat if the motor has been completely shut off or the sail furled and its progress therefrom has ceased.

(6) Any political subdivision, its employees or agents, which has a valid deer control permit issued under section 2902(c) (relating to special categories of permits).

The exceptions in paragraphs (1) through (5) of this subsection do not apply when attempting to locate game or wildlife with an artificial light or when exercising any privileges granted by this title which may be exercised only when not in the possession of a firearm.

(c) Penalty. - A violation of this section is a summary offense of the fourth degree if the vehicle is in motion. Otherwise the violation is a summary offense of the fifth degree.

[LittleRedToyota]

guess you guys better all go get your LTCFs then.

good grief.

i gotta think that was just an oversight, but they should fix that law so their list of exceptions simply incorporates the list of exceptions in the PA UFA.

[LittleRedToyota]

Originally Posted by Steve in PA

(3) A person carrying a loaded pistol or revolver when in possession of a valid firearms license issued by the chief or head of any police force or the sheriff of a county when the license is issued for protection under 18 Pa.C.S. Ch. 61 Subch. A (relating to Uniform Firearms Act).

i just noticed the bolded part...

i've always thought it mattered not one iota what reason you checked off for getting your LTCF since the PA UFA doesn't discuss the issue at all.

but, it seems that it actually does matter for the purposes of this law.

if you have "target shooting" or anything other than "protection" as the reason listed on your LTCF, it seems you are technically in violation of this law by carrying in a vehicle.

more craziness.

[Pa. Patriot]

Yeah, they exempted LTCF holders but not persons exempt from licensing? Typical PGC incompetence.

This needs addressed. It should read LTCF holders and those exempt from licensing.

I would not be too worried though, the above goes without saying. I can't imagine a court ever convicting people exempt from licensing (LTCF) such as LEO's.

[Steve in PA]

This whole thing started over the SP and whether a person could carry a loaded handgun in a vehicle while going to or coming from the place where they were hunting, fishing or trapping.

I stated and even showed this supposed WCO in black and white that the Uniform Firearms Act clearly states that having a valid SP allows the person to carry a loaded firearm while doing the above.

His answer was, no I was wrong and the PGC was right. I then pointed out the absurd law in my first post to prove that the PGC is wrong about more than one law.

I'm not worried about getting stopped by any WCO, its just that the PGC has the attitude that they are never wrong about anything.

[mikepro8]

Uhm.... wouldnt the Federal LEOSA law cover them? (maybe a stupid question...)

[Statkowski]

Constitutional Law 101: The "federal" LEOSA law only covers them if the State says it covers them. The U.S. Government may claim that federal law trumps state law, but such a claim lacks any lawful authority, and the U.S. Supreme Court has concurred.

[mikepro8]

Originally Posted by Statkowski

Constitutional Law 101: The "federal" LEOSA law only covers them if the State says it covers them. The U.S. Government may claim that federal law trumps state law, but such a claim lacks any lawful authority, and the U.S. Supreme Court has concurred.

See... not a stupid question.. just mis/underinformed!

[KrayzieVanh]

Originally Posted by Statkowski

Constitutional Law 101: The "federal" LEOSA law only covers them if the State says it covers them.

So your saying that a State has to "agree" to LEOSA in order for it to be in effect in the State?

HR 218 (LEOSA)
‘‘(b) This section shall not be construed to supersede or limit
the laws of any State that—
‘‘(1) permit private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict
the possession of concealed firearms on their property; or
‘‘(2) prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any
State or local government property, installation, building, base,
or park.

Anywhere else in the United States LEOs are authorized to carry.

[angus]

Heh-- I wonder how much "professional courtesy" off-duty WCO's will be receiving from their fellow officers in traffic stops when they venture out of their own AO's once borough and state cops get wind of this.