When was concealed carry first 'criminalized' in Pennsylvania?

[MDJschool]

I always wondered about the nature of the flowery language quoted by the lacking opinion in Wright v. Commonwealth, 77 Pa. 470 (1875). The court noted the indictment for the offense, but not the language of the statute itself. The indictment included that the defendant "did unlawfully and maliciously carry on and about (his) person, a certain concealed deadly weapon, commonly called a pistol, with intent, with the pistol aforesaid, unlawfully and maliciously, to do bodily harm to some other person, to the inquest unknown, &c." It also made two different types of references to the Act which made the offense:
sect. 1 of the Act of May 3d 1864, Pamph. L. 823, 1 Br. Purd. 323, pl. 40
Act of 5th May 1864, section 1, 1 Brightly 323, pl. 40

It turns out that the actual act may be the following:
No. 717
An Act
To punish persons for carrying concealed deadly weapons, in the county of Schuylkill.
Section 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Represenatitives of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in General Assembly met, and it is hereby enacted by the authority of the same
That any person, within the limits of the county of Schuylkill, who shall carry any fire arms, slung shot, dirk knife, or other deadly weapon, concealed upon his person, with the intent, therewith, unlawfully and maliciously, to do injury to any other person, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon the conviction thereof, shall be sentenced to undergo solitary confinement, at hard labor, in the prison of said county, for a period of not less than one month, nor more than one year, and pay a fine of not less than twenty-five, nor more than one hundred dollars, or either, or both, at the discretion of the court; and the jury trying the case may infer such intent, as aforesaid, from the fact of the said defendant carrying such weapon, in the manner as aforesaid.
HENRY C. JOHNSON,
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
JOHN P. PENNEY,
Speaker of the Senate.
Approved--The fifth day of May, Anno Domini one thousand eight hundred and sixty-four.
A. G. CURTIN.

[ImminentDanger]

No. 717
An Act
To punish persons for carrying concealed deadly weapons, in the county of Schuylkill.
Section 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Represenatitives of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in General Assembly met, and it is hereby enacted by the authority of the same
That any person, within the limits of the county of Schuylkill, who shall carry any fire arms, slung shot, dirk knife, or other deadly weapon, concealed upon his person, with the intent, therewith, unlawfully and maliciously, to do injury to any other person, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon the conviction thereof, shall be sentenced to undergo solitary confinement, at hard labor, in the prison of said county, for a period of not less than one month, nor more than one year, and pay a fine of not less than twenty-five, nor more than one hundred dollars, or either, or both, at the discretion of the court; and the jury trying the case may infer such intent, as aforesaid, from the fact of the said defendant carrying such weapon, in the manner as aforesaid.
HENRY C. JOHNSON,
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
JOHN P. PENNEY,
Speaker of the Senate.
Approved--The fifth day of May, Anno Domini one thousand eight hundred and sixty-four.
A. G. CURTIN.

Isn't it interesting that this Act 717 PRESUMES GUILT OF VIOLENT INTENTIONS without any actual evidence of such intentions or actions... but, also, other forms of Presumption of Innocence were violated during the Civil War...

Furthermore, isn't it interesting that this DASTARDLY DEED OF CONCEALING A WEAPON - WHICH PROVES INTENT TO DO HARM - is the very thing that is LICENSED (by the State) to be done by 'law-abiding citizens'....???....

There is much fallout still being felt from the 'societal nuclear blast' that was the Civil War - I'm not surprised that this Act 717, branding NON-ACTION as INTENT TO VIOLENCE, would be part of that fallout....

...
ID

[Big Chuck]

Isn't it interesting that this Act 717 PRESUMES GUILT OF VIOLENT INTENTIONS without any actual evidence of such intentions or actions... but, also, other forms of Presumption of Innocence were violated during the Civil War...

Furthermore, isn't it interesting that this DASTARDLY DEED OF CONCEALING A WEAPON - WHICH PROVES INTENT TO DO HARM - is the very thing that is LICENSED (by the State) to be done by 'law-abiding citizens'....???....

There is much fallout still being felt from the 'societal nuclear blast' that was the Civil War - I'm not surprised that this Act 717, branding NON-ACTION as INTENT TO VIOLENCE, would be part of that fallout....

...
ID

This was from a time where open carry was referred to as gentlemen's carry. Keep in mind, dueling was still legal at that time in several states. Concealed carry was considered cowardice and deceptive, and was reserved for criminals and assassins. I know this is hard to imagine coming from a time where people might wet their pants at the mere sight of a gun. The carrying of the firearm didn't show intent to do harm, hiding it did.

[Python73]

and upon the conviction thereof, shall be sentenced to undergo solitary confinement, at hard labor, in the prison of said county, for a period of not less than one month, nor more than one year

This right here is the only part of that "law" that isn't rubbish. One thing those old timers knew: jail should suck.

[ImminentDanger]

I'm not sure whether Big Chuck was agreeing or disagreeing with my post - or simply adding information to the mix...

There was a fallacy in their thinking regarding such laws - as these laws are Pre-Crime Laws that PRESUME GUILTY INTENTIONS... it is just antithetical, to the original American justice concept of Presumed Innocence and Trust in the Citizenry as the basis of the society, to make such laws...

Concealed carry was considered cowardice and deceptive, and was reserved for criminals and assassins.

I understand their thinking (for that time)... Irrelevant of the general truth of that societal perception, like so many ill-conceived or unprincipled laws, there is a presumption that it is safe to trade freedom for safety by only targetting the freedom of (would be) criminals - as though, it does not infringe on the freedoms of ANY non-intended citizen...

That has almost always NOT BEEN THE CASE since most laws were/are enforced based on the actual language as written(which is often poorly crafted) and rarely limited to the legislation's original intent...

So... I understand the 'original rationale' for making the law - but in my opinion, it was a BAD LAW from the beginning... and if they worked from the principle of freedom and trust (even though it included greater risks), they would not have passed such a Pre-Crime Law...

On principle, laws should stick to punishing ACTUAL CRIMINAL/VIOLENT ACTIONS and we should oppose the idea of legislating (and almost always failing to succeed at) 'an easier way' to prevent crimes from occuring...

BAD PEOPLE will do bad things - those people should be punished with appropriately harsh punishment WHEN they do bad things... Keeping them from re-entering society with that mind-set is an effective means of preventing their criminal acts...

...

[snakeman21]

This was from a time where open carry was referred to as gentlemen's carry. Keep in mind, dueling was still legal at that time in several states. Concealed carry was considered cowardice and deceptive, and was reserved for criminals and assassins. I know this is hard to imagine coming from a time where people might wet their pants at the mere sight of a gun. The carrying of the firearm didn't show intent to do harm, hiding it did.

Very true. For a long time, it was widely accepted that only criminals would have a reason to conceal their weapons.

[MDJschool]

This was from a time where open carry was referred to as gentlemen's carry. Keep in mind, dueling was still legal at that time in several states. Concealed carry was considered cowardice and deceptive, and was reserved for criminals and assassins.

Where are the Acts criminalizing concealed carry from 1776 to 1864?

Isn't it interesting that this Act 717 PRESUMES GUILT OF VIOLENT INTENTIONS without any actual evidence of such intentions or actions...

While it is heinous that such a law might be implemented, take notice: today, the legislature no longer feels the need to tie a 'crime' to harming some on at ALL. This historical statute requires:
• unlawful and malicious intent
• [a purpose to] do injury to any other person
which presumably are proven beyond a reasonable doubt, or would have to be today.
That the statute creates a permissible inference does not mean that it may not be rebutted; such an inference may be overcome.

Until the early 1900s, at least some courts (SCOPA in 1875, a CCP in 1910) were taking the view that the intent and purpose provisions must exist or no offense against the Commonwealth was described by the law.

Of course, and again I make no excuses for such failures to adhere to the constitutions, Vermont's law, having no prohibition against concealed or open carry generally, still prescribes that: "A person who carries a dangerous or deadly weapon, openly or concealed, with the intent or avowed purpose of injuring a fellow man, . . . shall be imprisoned not more than two years or fined not more than $200.00, or both." Vermont could easily have a different climate than it has now with law written as such.

[snakeman21]

Of course, and again I make no excuses for such failures to adhere to the constitutions, Vermont's law, having no prohibition against concealed or open carry generally, still prescribes that: "A person who carries a dangerous or deadly weapon, openly or concealed, with the intent or avowed purpose of injuring a fellow man, . . . shall be imprisoned not more than two years or fined not more than $200.00, or both." Vermont could easily have a different climate than it has now with law written as such.

That "with the intent" part has always caught my eye, but after numerous encounters with the police in Vermont and never a single infringement of my 2A rights by a LEO, I hadn't thought of it in a while. It seems that there needs to be evidence, or at least an allegation by another person, that the weapon was intended to be used maliciously in order to charge. The simple act of carrying a weapon does not imply malicious intent.

But, as we all know, LEO can and will do what they want regardless.

[customloaded]

Not a lawyer but I read the statute to mean that a person may be convicted of carry a concealed weapon if he did so with intent to commit harm...ie a man finds the preacher in bed with his wife, hunts down said preacher while concealing said weapon and attempts to harm the preacher. He unlawfully carried a concealed weapon while meaning to do harm to another.

I think that is how the statue was intended to be enforced rather than assuming guilt for the mere purpose of concealment. I say this because the idea of concealed carry was not a prominent political activity at that time in history. Carrying concealed or open was not what it is today in terms of legal descriptions or politcal activism.

CL

[IronSight]

This was from a time where open carry was referred to as gentlemen's carry. Keep in mind, dueling was still legal at that time in several states. Concealed carry was considered cowardice and deceptive, and was reserved for criminals and assassins. I know this is hard to imagine coming from a time where people might wet their pants at the mere sight of a gun. The carrying of the firearm didn't show intent to do harm, hiding it did.

We have evidence of this belief of the time from SPECIFIC areas of the country, not all.

Considering such, presenting such a blanket statement on how the forms of carry were considered at the time is in my opinion wrong to do.

That's like taking the prevailing legal views on firearms law in CA, NJ, and NY today and applying it to the country as a whole.