So I'm a little confused about LEO's and my rights....

[imperialism2024]

Originally Posted by LittleRedToyota

actually, even if it was cased and in the trunk, you still need an LTCF in PA.

i think you are prolly thinking of the federal law about interstate travel with a firearm. however, that law applies to interstate, not intrastate, travel where you do not stop in the state in question. it would not apply to your driving from your house in PA to walmart in PA.

The PA statute that we all know and love refers to "carry", not "transport". Transport is not discussed at all in PA statute, AFAIK. So, some could choose to pick the strictest interpretation, that a person cannot so much as have a handgun frame in a triple-locked safe without a LTCF... or others could choose to pick the interpretation that one must only not be "carrying" in a car, which would generally mean that the (unloaded) firearm is outside of that person's immediate control. Granted it could be a lengthy legal battle to prove that the latter is acceptable, but not presenting one's "papers" could also lead to a lengthy legal battle to prove one is correct.

Exact wording: "a) Offense defined.--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."

Says nothing about "transport"

[LittleRedToyota]

Originally Posted by Wynder

The exception I was thinking of was the one for if you're going target shooting, which is the only reason I've brought my firearm into PA. Though, now that I have my Delaware CCDW, I'm good to transport it in my vehicle going into PA now. Yay.

the thing about that exception is that you can't make any stops along the way. you cannot stop at walmart to pick up ammo on the way. you must to directly to the range and directly home from the range.

there were a few cases posted by whitefeather (edited: i had attributed the post to the wrong person) in some other thread recently where people have been prosecuted for similar stops.

one i remember was that a man was prosecuted because he bought a pistol...carried it unloaded as per state law...but stopped at his sister's house on the way home to show it to her.

he ended up getting pulled over for some minor traffic infraction and admitted to the LEO that he had stopped at his sisters. he ended up, iirc, being convicted of a felony and is no longer allowed to own firearms.

btw, congrats on the DE permit. you might also want to consider getting a PA non-resident permit (the centre county sheriff is the best place to do it...and it can all be done through the mail...it's an easy process and not very expensive). that way you can CC in PA as well.

[PisnNapalm]

Wynder.... The more I watch that video the more I get pissed off about it.

[Wynder]

Originally Posted by LittleRedToyota

the thing about that exception is that you can't make any stops along the way. you cannot stop at walmart to pick up ammo on the way. you must to directly to the range and directly home from the range.

Luckily for me, when I go up 202 over the PA line, it's a 6 minute drive to the range with, really, nowhere in between to stop.

btw, congrats on the DE permit. you might also want to consider getting a PA non-resident permit (the centre county sheriff is the best place to do it...and it can all be done through the mail...it's an easy process and not very expensive). that way you can CC in PA as well.

Paperwork sent off to Centre County last Tuesday.

[Wynder]

Originally Posted by PisnNapalm

Wynder.... The more I watch that video the more I get pissed off about it.

He has a couple of other videos up there, at the very least a sound clip of a stop. It's all very, very frustrating.

[LittleRedToyota]

Originally Posted by imperialism2024

The PA statute that we all know and love refers to "carry", not "transport". Transport is not discussed at all in PA statute, AFAIK. So, some could choose to pick the strictest interpretation, that a person cannot so much as have a handgun frame in a triple-locked safe without a LTCF... or others could choose to pick the interpretation that one must only not be "carrying" in a car, which would generally mean that the (unloaded) firearm is outside of that person's immediate control. Granted it could be a lengthy legal battle to prove that the latter is acceptable, but not presenting one's "papers" could also lead to a lengthy legal battle to prove one is correct.

Exact wording: "a) Offense defined.--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."

Says nothing about "transport"

if i were the judge, i'd buy that argument, but i don't think a real judge will.

most people "carry" a spare tire in their trunk...they don't "transport" a spare tire in their trunk.

more importantly, unfortunately, it seems there have been cases where this law was applied to people "transporting" unloaded firearms and making stops along the way.

see this thread:

http://www.pafoa.org/forum/question-...ng-page-2.html

halfway down page 2 or so is a post by whitefeather that references the cases.

[Wynder]

I have my copy of Black's Law Dictionary 8th Ed.) here... I'll post the relevant stuff:

carry: To possess or convey (a firearm) in a vehicle, including locked in the glove compartment or trunk. (Adopted in Muscarello v. US, 524 U.S. 125, 118 S.Ct. 1911 (1998).

Other definitions: To sustain the weight or burden of; to hold or bear. To convey or transport.

With legal crap, you can't use good ol' Merriam-Webster, unfortunately. Most terms are either defined in the statute or are defined from a law dictionary that's been around for a few hundred years, like Black's.

[Kaos]

Originally Posted by jrbib24

As long as you don't say "Don't tase me, Dude!" you should be all right.

It's "Don't tase me bro"

Get it right.



j/k

[Gary in Pennsylvania]

Originally Posted by Wynder

Reasonable articulable suspicion. It's what's required to detain you, as opposed to probably cause which is what's required to arrest you.

Hmmmmm. Looking at the Wikipedia entry in the "Terry Stop" thread lead me back to this thread regarding Reasonable Suspicion.


And the Wiki entry for RAS

Courts have ruled that a stop for a reasonable suspicion may be appropriate in the following cases: when a person possesses many unusual items which would be useful in a crime and appears agitated, when a person matches a description of a suspect, or when a person runs away at the sight of police officers. However, a reasonable suspicion may not apply merely because a person refuses to answer questions, declines to allow a voluntary search, or is of a suspected race or ethnicity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_suspicion

The 'race' thing is obvious. But the 'questions' clause leads me back to the specific post/reply Wynder made : http://www.pafoa.org/forum/concealed...tml#post183566

It appears that, though Wynder's explination may not be the most absolute Courteous dialog you could share with the example LEO.......Wynder's approach, I think, is very valid and legal.

Interesting.

[Jelanen]

Originally Posted by Gary in Pennsylvania

It appears that, though Wynder's explination may not be the most absolute Courteous dialog you could share with the example LEO.......Wynder's approach, I think, is very valid and legal.

IMO, courtesy ended when I started getting my balls busted by the cops without doing anything wrong. I'm not a pond, I don't appreciate fishing expeditions.

/jumps into his flameproof gear