Saw something in Wilkes-Barre today...

[Asterix909]

He can CLEARLY SEE IT.

This is the point I am arguing. I do not have anything to say about OC, CC, vehicles, or anything else.
I am simply saying that a ltcf on your belt is NOT CLEARLY VISIBLE.
Take out your ltcf, place it on a table, then step three feet away. Can you read the words "Valid until expiration date indicated unless revoked." ? I can't. I doubt any LEO could.
My point is that you are not clearly displaying your ltcf by clipping it to your belt.

[JCWohlschlag]

I would not have to give it anyone. I am stopped for a moving violation. I am asked if I have a LTCF on a motorized vehicle? Yes. No need to show it(by reaching for it). Was I stopped because of OCing or MV? Once I am stopped?
It would stop, being stopped for OCing on a motorcycle!

If I have a LTCF they can see it. If I have one, no need tell them I am carrying(can be seen). It would be like PROVING I OWN THE GUN.

The law does not say you must simply prove to the officer that you have a license to carry a firearm. It specifies that you must “produce the license for inspection.” I am not a lawyer, of course, but I would venture to guess that inspection includes the inherent ability to hand the license to the officer.

18 Pa.C.S. § 6122

Title 18 Pa.C.S.A. Crimes and Offenses

Part II. Definition of Specific Offenses

Article G. Miscellaneous Offenses

Chapter 61. Firearms and Other Dangerous Articles

Subchapter A. Uniform Firearms Act

§ 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.

[Wild Bill Klinton]

The law does not say you must simply prove to the officer that you have a license to carry a firearm. It specifies that you must “produce the license for inspection.” I am not a lawyer, of course, but I would venture to guess that inspection includes the inherent ability to hand the license to the officer.

18 Pa.C.S. § 6122

Title 18 Pa.C.S.A. Crimes and Offenses

Part II. Definition of Specific Offenses

Article G. Miscellaneous Offenses

Chapter 61. Firearms and Other Dangerous Articles

Subchapter A. Uniform Firearms Act

§ 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.

I agree except that word "CONCEALED on or about about one's person or IN a vehicle". I have to strongly disagree, I am doing neither. Concealing or IN a vehicle, I am ON a vehicle. Clearly displaying my LICENSE.

[JCWohlschlag]

I agree except that word "CONCEALED on or about about one's person or IN a vehicle". I have to strongly disagree, I am doing neither. Concealing or IN a vehicle, I am ON a vehicle. Clearly displaying my LICENSE.

Well, the debate of whether you are in or on a vehicle when you ride a motorcycle is another debate entirely.

What I contend is that, even if you were lawfully detained (i.e., with reasonable, articulable suspicion) while on foot and a police officer demanded to see your license to carry a firearm, simply lifting your shirt and showing the license in a holder on your belt would not suffice. A police officer bending down and sticking their head close enough to your waist to actually read the license would be giving up a significant amount of tactical safety in doing so. Therefore, expect the officer to tell you to remove the license and hand it to them.

Again, I am not a lawyer, nor am I a police officer.

[Wild Bill Klinton]

Well, the debate of whether you are in or on a vehicle when you ride a motorcycle is another debate entirely.

What I contend is that, even if you were lawfully detained (i.e., with reasonable, articulable suspicion) while on foot and a police officer demanded to see your license to carry a firearm, simply lifting your shirt and showing the license in a holder on your belt would not suffice. A police officer bending down and sticking their head close enough to your waist to actually read the license would be giving up a significant amount of tactical safety in doing so. Therefore, expect the officer to tell you to remove the license and hand it to them.

Again, I am not a lawyer, nor am I a police officer.

Again, I have to STRONGLY DISAGREE. On foot OCing No need to show ANYTHING, remember DCPD.
If I am pulled over for OCing on MC. What would the reason for the stop to be? I'm I being pulled over for OCing? Or a MV?

BIG DIFFERANCE!!

[JCWohlschlag]

Again, I have to STRONGLY DISAGREE. On foot OCing No need to show ANYTHING, remember DCPD.
If I am pulled over for OCing on MC. What would the reason for the stop to be? I'm I being pulled over for OCing? Or a MV?

BIG DIFFERANCE!!

My apologies. I meant to clarify that my previous example included being lawfully detained while carrying concealed, so the requirement to “produce your license to carry a firearm for inspection” would still hold true.

[Wild Bill Klinton]

My apologies. I meant to clarify that my previous example included being lawfully detained while carrying concealed, so the requirement to “produce your license to carry a firearm for inspection” would still hold true.

I agree IF I was OCing in my car. I am OCing clearly in sight of anyone. I am also Openly displaying my LTCF.

[JCWohlschlag]

I agree IF I was OCing in my car. I am OCing clearly in sight of anyone. I am also Openly displaying my LTCF.

Huh? What tangent are we on, now?

To simplify my position:

• Regardless of whether you are carrying openly or concealed…
• Regardless of whether you are carrying in, on, around, under, or through a car, van, motorcycle, or hot wheels toy…
• Regardless of whether an officer pulls you over for a moving violation, carrying a firearm, or wearing chaps and a thong…
• Regardless of whether an officer’s demand for your license to carry a firearm is lawful or unlawful…

When you are required for any reason to “provide your license to carry a firearm for inspection”, simply having your license visibly attached to your belt probably will not be sufficient. I cannot imagine that a police officer would essentially put their chin in your pocket in order to read your license. I strongly believe that the police officer would be within reason to demand that you remove your license to carry a firearm from your belt and hand it over.

You may pretense the situation however you wish, but that is my position. You may place the exact amount of worth in it as what you paid for it, but that is my position. Whether you agree with it or not is a decision that is only yours to make.

[Wild Bill Klinton]

Huh? What tangent are we on, now?

To simplify my position:

• Regardless of whether you are carrying openly or concealed…
• Regardless of whether you are carrying in, on, around, under, or through a car, van, motorcycle, or hot wheels toy…
• Regardless of whether an officer pulls you over for a moving violation, carrying a firearm, or wearing chaps and a thong…
• Regardless of whether an officer’s demand for your license to carry a firearm is lawful or unlawful…

When you are required for any reason to “provide your license to carry a firearm for inspection”, simply having your license visibly attached to your belt probably will not be sufficient. I cannot imagine that a police officer would essentially put their chin in your pocket in order to read your license. I strongly believe that the police officer would be within reason to demand that you remove your license to carry a firearm from your belt and hand it over.

You may pretense the situation however you wish, but that is my position. You may place the exact amount of worth in it as what you paid for it, but that is my position. Whether you agree with it or not is a decision that is only yours to make.

Why thanking you for the term tangent: a curve going to a straight line in a point of tangency.
An officer on DEMAND in an OC situation, can ask for my or your LTCF. If I or you choose to show OK, or tell him to K!@# My A$%. It would be OUR Choice.

Other than the derogatories of my answer, you will agree I DONOT HAVE TO SHOW MY LTCF. On foot, not in PHILTHY, NO NEED FOR LTCF.

Question: on demand of whom and under what law?

[Wild Bill Klinton]

You may pretense the situation however you wish, but that is my position. You may place the exact amount of worth in it as what you paid for it, but that is my position. Whether you agree with it or not is a decision that is only yours to make.[/QUOTE]

I guess a judge COULD make a decision?