When are you required to produce your LTCF?

[zackattack784]

I've looked all over and I've tried searching, but alas, no luck. I guess my search-fu is off. Anyway here is my question:

When are you required by law to produce your LTCF? I thought I remembered seeing a statute somewhere that at least semi-addresses this but I can't find it right now.

Particularly, say you're OC'ing and an officer demands to see your LTCF, in this instance I know you are NOT required to show them your LTCF. But say an officer sees you enter a vehicle while OC'ing and asks to see your LTCF.

Common sense says no, you don't have to show it. Police don't pull you over just to make sure you have a driver's license, but I know there is no such thing as common sense when it comes to the law.

So in this scenario are you required to show your license?

Thanks and sorry if this question is somewhere else and I just can't find it right now.

[JCWohlschlag]

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

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.

(b) Exception.--An individual carrying a firearm on or about his person or in a vehicle and claiming an exception under section 6106(b) (relating to firearms not to be carried without a license) shall, upon lawful demand of a law enforcement officer, produce satisfactory evidence of qualification for exception.

Basically, the main contention you are going to encounter is whether a law enforcement officer’s demand is lawful in any given circumstances. A demand for your license to carry a firearm (LTCF) can only be lawful if the law enforcement officer has reasonable, articulable suspicion (RAS) to detain you. There is a lot of contention as to whether a law enforcement officer can lawfully detain you and demand your license to carry a firearm simply because the officer personally observed your concealed firearm or personally observed you carrying in a vehicle, absent any suspicion of you committing any other crime. However, when you are lawfully detained for suspicion of violating some other unrelated crime, such as being pulled over for a Vehicle Code violation, and the officer personally observes that you are carrying a concealed firearm or are carrying in a vehicle (such as when you blatantly tell the officer so), a demand for your license to carry a firearm (LTCF) is generally lawful (I believe). (There may be some contention on that, too.)

In the case when you are stopped for no apparent crime or no apparent reason, asking the law enforcement officer, “Am I free to leave,” and/or, “Am I being detained,” can be a good way to test whether a demand is unlawful or not. If the officer says that you are not being detained and you are free to leave, then no demands are lawful yet. You may lawfully choose to ignore the officer and walk away. If you are under detainment, and you are not free to leave, you are now reliant on your own education and understanding of the reasonable, articulable suspicion (RAS) standard of evidence when making a decision about whether the demand for your license to carry a firearm (LTCF) is lawful or not, and you better be damn sure that the demand is not lawful before you choose to refuse.

Best suggestion I can make is to educate yourself on the subject, such as with this thread, and make whatever educated decision you are most comfortable with in each individual case. If you want to forgo gaining an education about such a complex subject and instead want an absolute quick-and-dirty answer, the best you’re going to get is one from a lawyer, such as this one:

I think it's correct to focus on what constitutes a "lawful order" to show your LTCF.

The general penalty for violating any provision of the UFA is a 1st degree misdemeanor (which is an interesting thing to remember when the cops take your gun but forget to issue a receipt, which is a violation of the UFA, Sec. 6105(f); or the local police fail to return your gun as required by 6111.1(b)(4).)

§ 6119. Violation penalty
Except as otherwise specifically provided, an offense under this subchapter constitutes a misdemeanor of the first degree.


Carrying concealed or in a vehicle without a license is phrased such that the DA has to prove the lack of a license, it's not an affirmative defense that you have to prove:

§ 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.
(2) A person who is otherwise eligible to possess a [FN1] valid license under this chapter but 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 and has not committed any other criminal violation commits a misdemeanor of the first degree.

So what you're left with is this:

§ 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.

Failure to whip out your license upon lawful demand will at least create a rebuttable presumption. At worst, it's a violation of the UFA, which is an M-1 offense, a lifetime prohibitor for firearms ownership.

I'd show the license. Your alternative is to gamble that every idle request is an unlawful order, and trust that the judge will side with you against the cops. That doesn't happen a lot. If the judge says it was a lawful order, and you failed to comply, you're toast, a future bystander to gun ownership.

This is only a snippet of the material available here on these subjects. This subject is a whole lot bigger than you probably realize, going all the way back to case law from the 1960s. Despite it probably being difficult to find in a search, there is a metric buttload of information and discussion about this subject here. Other members may be able to point you to other threads of interest.

[zackattack784]

That was EXACTLY the statute I was looking for, thank you! And thanks a bunch for all the extra info. I actually am quite aware of the various forms of police detention/encounters but that thread is such a wealth of information that I plan on reading through it as a nice refresher.

Thanks again, that's exactly what I was looking for. Rep sent!

[MuzzleFlash]

Sometimes police don't like to bother with that pesky "lawful" demand stuff, in those situations...



..now would be a good time to hand over your LTCF.

[DaveM55]

Nice picture muzzleflash but those are police from some foreign country not the US.

And that picture is not a factual representation of actual police work in the US.

It's just common police bashing since it doesn't have relevance tio this thread.

[DonSmithnotTMD]

Probably these guys.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_Group
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vympel

[MuzzleFlash]

Nice picture muzzleflash but those are police from some foreign country not the US.

Yes, that was an exaggerated attempt at humor.

And that picture is not a factual representation of actual police work in the US.

Are these more to your liking?
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_WfJmo9gA7i...0-h/smile2.JPG
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_WfJmo9gA7i.../s1600-h/8.jpg
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_WfJmo9gA7i...s1600-h/14.jpg

It's just common police bashing since it doesn't have relevance tio this thread.

If I listed 1,000 pictures of police abusing their power, that's not "police bashing." It's merely demonstrating that it happens. As for the relevance to this post, the title is "When are you required to produce your LTCF?" The answer is, in addition to when it's lawfully requested, when you're met with the threat of force or illegally placed under arrest by an officer. You don't resist.

[zackattack784]

Nice picture muzzleflash but those are police from some foreign country not the US.

And that picture is not a factual representation of actual police work in the US.

It's just common police bashing since it doesn't have relevance tio this thread.

I'll have to disagree. I found the answer I was looking for and MuzzleFlash was just trying to have fun. I knew he was joking and in no way did cop bashing even cross my mind.

As evidenced by this forum, many OC police encounters don't go as smoothly as they should and there are times when Police over step their authority, MF was just humorously getting that point across.

Also a good point, you should never resist. Don't consent to anything (and make that well known), but peacefully comply with all commands. Then contact your lawyer and prepare to spend a beautiful week in the tropics, courtesy of the government.

[Bruce]

The old "Exactly what constitutes lawful demand?" question, eh?

After reading the UFA over several times, I am not entirely convinced that the phrase "upon lawful demand" was intentionally made cryptic and ambiguous; in spite of the fact that I resent any aspect of our Article 1, Section 21 Right being put under any 'government control', much of this piece of legislation actually seems lucid and comprehensible. As an LTCF is, essentially, a "license" to exercise a Right, I do not feel it can be likened to a Driver License - driving is a privilege and not a Right, Bearing Arms, however, *is* a Constitutional Right.

My thinking is that the authors of the UFA did intend to curb the baseless and warrantless demand to 'produce' an LTCF; instead, they intended that there must exist some "lawful" reason to demand LTCF production. More simply, I believe that simply observing that a citizen is concealing (or attempting to conceal) arms, or when a citizen is observed armed in a vehicle, (when said citizen is not in/at a place where arms are prohibited, of course) is not sufficient grounds to demand the presentation of a license.

So what would be a lawful demand? It is hard to say, but the concensus seems to be 'during the course of a lawful investigation' (which would require RAS/PC). Right now, we have a choice: we can get our legislators to amend the UFA and define this demand (which I would prefer) or we can wait for a court case where some judge will decide in some random case where a demand to see an LTCF brought into question during the case was, in fact, lawful. If the latter occurs, I am fairly certain that as a result of this 'finding' by a judge, it will likely lead to 'case law' that enables *any* demand to be considered a lawful demand.
.

[wa3ra]

Yes, they have the current Vympel logo on their uniforms; that picture is from a training exercise and the guy on the ground is another officer. That force took a real beating when the USSR failed, they are used like a cross between the FBI and ATF right now.

Thay also have an 'Alpha' group, their logo is similar, but has 'Antiterrorist' in Cyrillic across the top of the shield.

I believe that if EITHER of those groups asked to see my LTCF, I'd probably give it to them.

My take: If you are OC and hop into the car, then the officer probably has RAS to ask for it; once produced, the incident should be 'over'.