READ FIRST: Where you CAN and CANNOT Carry weapons in the State of Pennsylvania

[natewal4430]

I basicly want to know who i should contact at the university i am attending to clearify their standing on firearms on their property. I believe that it should be written somewhere in the university's rules, but I dont even know who to try to contact to get a copy so I can read it for my self. And if there isn't anything written in their "books", could they possibly expel me if i were to carry on the university's property??

[P-11 shooter]

check first.

Make shure you see WRITTEN rules, and not just some paranoid gun-shy secretary telling you it's not allowed.

[knight0334]

A dean or a student adviser should be able to provide you a copy of the university's rules.

[PeteG]

"If they don't follow through you can be sure you will be hit with a 10,000 dollar minimum fine from the TSAs Civil side of the house. (I have seen fines in excess of 25,000 dollars written out. And yes they will stick, meaning you will have to pay them)"

The above information, referring to TSA administratively imposed "civil penalties," is not exactly correct.

I have defended a number of these "civil penalties," and I have sued the TSA for making up its own rules as they go along.
I have personally encountered fines ranging from $500 to $25,000. The maximum penalty that can be a "civil" penalty is $250,000. It is up to the TSA agent in charge to decide what penalty to seek. Their crieteria are a state secret (literally).

In every case I have ever seen or heard of, the TSA advises they are seeking a penalty of X dollars, but if the accused waives a right to a hearing and pleads guilty (to this supposedly "civil" penalty), the TSA will reduce the claim by one-half. Always by one-half.

(They call this a "civil" penalty because assessment of "criminal" penalties both invokes certain due process rights and motivates people to defend, both undesireable from the point of view of the TSA. If you don't pay a "civil penalty" you don't go to jail; rather, they take your house, car, tools and bank accounts. What a relief.)

The rules the TSA employs are not fully settled. Some of them are not written down anyplace, and are therefore inconsistent from place-to-place or agent-to-agent.

They lie.

For example, the TSA takes the position that the term "firearm" is defined as it is in the Gun Control Act of 1968 (meaning the reciever alone can be construed as a "firearm"). This is complete bull-shit.

First: the term is not, in fact, so defined in any statute pertaining to the TSA or homeland security, OR in TSA regulations, OR in any informal publication by the TSA (or at least it was not as of this time last year, when I last researched the issue). There is no mention of the 1968 GCA, either explictily or by adoption of the language of the 1968 Act.

Second: the definition in the 1968 GCA exempts "antique firearms" from the definition of "firearm." Go ahead and try to carry an 1870's cap-and-ball revolver on the plane, and see what happens. In truth, the TSA defines "firearm" in accordance with select portions of the definition of "firearm" used in the 1968 GCA. Sometimes. They have not written down which portions they use and which they ignore, and they won't tell you until after you have done something they don't like and they want to assess a "civil penalty." Don't believe me? Just ask them.

Third: the TSA has stopped (arrested, actually, although they deny it is an "arrest") and fined people for having parts of firearms in thier baggage other than the receiver, despite the existence of TSA publications which state that "firearms parts" are allowed in checked baggage. I am one of those they arrested for having "parts" in my bag. (Actually, it was my wife's bag, not mine, but who cares about the details when you are fighting terrorism.)

Fourth: the term "firearm" is applied throghout existing TSA regulations in its ordinary sense, meaning a gun that will fire.

I was pulled off a flight and assessed a "civil fine" because there were firearms parts in MY WIFE's bag. Throughout the procedure I was referred to as "the suspect." (There was a comic moment when one of the little fat men was describing "the suspect" to someone on the other end of the radio as 5' 10" tall, 190 pounds, and wearing a tan shirt - while I was standing in front of him. I am 6' 1" tall, 240 pounds, I had on a pink shirt, and they had my driver's license and carry permit. ) The also recorded the serial numbers from the two receivers that were in my wife's bag, and transmitted those by radio to someone (who is classified).

The TSA then went through the routine of offering to cut my fine by 50%, to which I responded impolitely. They then offered to drop the whole thing if I would withdraw my law suit, to which I responded impolitely.

My federal suit was withdrawn, by consent, because the law currently requires me to go through the administrative hearing before I could be heard in federal court. At the administrative level, the "civil fine" was thrown out entirely by the administrative law judge, and the TSA's case was dismissed.

I never re-filed my federal action, because it was time-consuming, I have a life to attend to, nobody else seems to give a crap, and I was tired of screwing with these fools. (All of which, of course, they count on.)

Just as a point of general interest, the TSA could easily define "firearm" any way they want. The do not. I suspect it is because they like keeping things vague.

It is clearly unconstitutional to impose penalties (that means "civil" or "criminal" penalties) upon a citizen, based upon a statute (OR regulations OR "policy or practice" - no loophole there) which are so vague that a person of ordinary intelligence would not be put on notice as to what conduct is prohibited and what conduct is allowed. The TSA regulations do not satisfy this basic constitutional requirement. But noboby fights them, so they continue to do it.

So what? We are safer, right? And anyway, that stuff only happens to the "other guy." (Until its you sitting uneasily in my waiting room, with a fine the size of your mortgage pending.)

I had discussions with legal counsel for TSA (at the Washington, D.C. level). When I pointed out that even a reciever of a firearm was inert without the rest of the parts necessary assemble a working gun, she told me the reason they include "parts" in the defintion of "firearm" (which they sometimes do and sometimes don't) is : a bad guy (now known by the universally applied epithet "terrorist") could get himself a job that gave him access to checked bags, and then have confederates put parts of firearms in several different checked bags, and the terrorist, being on the other side of security and knowing which bags contain the parts, could then retrieve the parts from the several different bags, assemble a gun, and pass it on to someone on board. (How they would pass it on is classified, so I can't tell you that part, because I don't know. Who set this policy is also classified, as is the procedure by which this internal policy was set. How or why they think this has happened or could ever happen is also classified.)

I'm not making this up!

Or course, the terrorist could bring his own gun.

Or the terrorist could have a key to the "locked case" of an assembled gun and ammunition, which had been legally declared and put into a single checked bag by the postulated confederate. It seems to me this would save the terrorist a lot of time and trouble.

When these obvious facts were pointed out, counsel had nothing to say. Nor did she have anything to say when I asked why the official TSA web site expressly states "parts" can be lawfully carried in checked bags. Nor did she have anything to say when I asked why they don't just publish a comprehensible definition of "firearm," or publish that all "parts" must also be declared. All of that information was "classified." (Meantime, I'm trying to defend myself against an arbitrary and capricious application of government power, the sources and basis for which are all "classified." How very convenient.)

In the end, you don't want to screw with these people. They have great power, weak to non-existent oversight, they are arbitrary as hell, and they lie. (The complaint filed against me ... the one that was dismissed ... was one-third complete fiction.)

Be afraid. It's what they want. And it's warranted.

[BRVTVS]

Stupid Question the First: Carrying loaded firearms in a car is illegal, apparently. Does this apply if you're carrying concealed? I mean, I'll do it if required, but it would be inconvenient to get in, unstrap and and unload, then drive, park and reload and restrap.

Stupid Question the Second: Carrying in a bar? I've heard a lot of different explanations about this, from it's illegal to it's legal to you've gotta tell the bartender you're carrying and they can either let you keep the weapon or demand that you turn it over Wild West style and give it back after you pay up your tab. Any takers?

[Pa. Patriot]

Originally Posted by BRVTVS

Carrying loaded firearms in a car is illegal, apparently. Does this apply if you're carrying concealed?

Not apparently, definitely, by statute. And it applies to "carry in a vehicle" meaning open OR concealed.

§ 6106. Firearms not to be carried without a license.

(a) Offense defined.--
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), any person who
carries a firearm in any vehicle or any person who carries a
firearm concealed on or about his person, except in his place
of abode or fixed place of business, without a valid and
lawfully issued license under this chapter commits a felony
of the third degree. --snip--

One of the exceptions to the above law is if you have a LTCF.

Originally Posted by BRVTVS

Carrying in a bar? I've heard a lot of different explanations about this, from it's illegal to it's legal to you've gotta tell the bartender you're carrying and they can either let you keep the weapon or demand that you turn it over Wild West style and give it back after you pay up your tab. Any takers?

There is no law concerning carry in bar or establishments that sell alcohol, period.
Anything you have heard other than "It's legal" is BS.
Standard private property rules apply.

[PhilA]

Originally Posted by BRVTVS

Stupid Question the First: Carrying loaded firearms in a car is illegal, apparently. Does this apply if you're carrying concealed? I mean, I'll do it if required, but it would be inconvenient to get in, unstrap and and unload, then drive, park and reload and restrap.

Stupid Question the Second: Carrying in a bar? I've heard a lot of different explanations about this, from it's illegal to it's legal to you've gotta tell the bartender you're carrying and they can either let you keep the weapon or demand that you turn it over Wild West style and give it back after you pay up your tab. Any takers?

Sadly, you've heard a whole lot of hooey.

To clarify: If you possess a valid PA LTCF, you may have a loaded handgun in your car. Long guns need to be unloaded.

To clarify further: In PA, you may carry concealed in places that serve alcohol. However, and I know others on this forum will offer their thoughts on this as well, but if you DO carry into a bar, drinking is considered a bad idea while carrying. Now, I've carried and had a drink. Two, on occasion. But that's my limit, and only if I've had enough food and time to negate the effects of the second drink. If I'm ever in a situation where I need to use my gun, I don't want any chance that later on I'll have to worry that alcohol impaired my judgement.

[Pa. Patriot]

Originally Posted by PhilA

In PA, you may carry concealed in places that serve alcohol....

... Or openly

[PhilA]

Originally Posted by Pa. Patriot

... Or openly

Damn...I always get that one wrong.

Thanks for the clarification.

[Pa. Patriot]

Originally Posted by PhilA

Damn...I always get that one wrong.

Thanks for the clarification.

lol - Seriously, I would imagine it's easy to forget if one doesn't practice it.