Quote:
Originally Posted by PA452
Are these legal to carry in PA? I have a couple Benchmade push-button auto openers I bought in other states while I was in the military. Are they legal to carry in PA as a pocket knife?
|
I don't know. What do Pa.Const. Art I, Sec 21 and 25 say? We really don't need a statute like 18pacs6120 to preempt arms regulation because the constitution already does that. The only reason we might need statutes to preempt is for the purpose of defeating sovereign immunity for civil suit. If the knife is an arm, (and I don't see why not since our military uses them, warfare has been reduced to intermediate distances in cities, what's different about knives and bayonets or trench spikes, etc.,) then it makes ordinances unconstitutional also.
An instructor suggested that (b)(2) and (b)(3) might be elements of the offense. I don't know what case law says or does not say on this matter, so I will have to check.
If you're not banned from firearms via 922 or 6105, or some other unknown legal disability, then you shouldn't be able to be convicted for POW, because (a) doesn't apply to those who aren't prohibited from firearms. Some of you will balk at that presumption, but you need only understand English and that the judiciary can't substitute words or make up their own meanings to improve a statute.
Suppose the knife is a switchblade, carried on the public street in Perry county. We consider solely the charge of 18pacs908.
A person who - PA453
except as authorized by law - (b)(3)
possesses - carries
any offensive weapon - switchblade
So it seems like at first pass, PA453 qualifies for an offense, however,
This section - ss908
shall not apply to - eliminates possibility probable cause for
any person - PA453
who otherwise uses or possesses any firearm - a person who owns or carries firearms
for purposes not prohibited by the laws of this Commonwealth - can't carry to commit a murder or robbery (for example) or if prohibited by 18pacs6105, but carrying for defense of himself and his state is always a good purpose.
"Person who" precedes a condition or quality a person possesses, not a a condition conferred by instant action. It is not "person who is possessing" or "this subsection only applies when the 'offensive weapon' is a sawed-off shotgun."
What this says to me is that those who aren't possessing or using in the perpetration of crimes or aren't banned by 6105 can possess and carry all the POWs they want, lawfully (this is an interpretation based on construction and not an analysis of court cases.)
I'm sure several would prefer I put a caveat emptor disclaimer because of the high likelihood of (unlawful) arrest and prosecution. It's fine if you err on the side of caution. If you are erring on the side of caution but you would like to lawfully carry POWs and think you have a constitutional or statutory entitlement, however, and the nature of the law makes the threat so real, instant, and severe that you shy away from lawful conduct, (an opinion I've read suggests) the federal district courts, or wherever you may bring a 1983 suit, should recognize you have at least a 1983 argument that may not be summarily dismissed.
Once I get a handle on drafting legislation and getting legislators to adopt it as a cause, 908 is one of my targets because it's retarded not only in content but in structure.