"Next time, make sure you bring your carry permit."

[jerkin]

I'm confused. I thought Knight and TL were saying that you aren't under 6106b or 6109 when OPENLY carrying. With that in mind, wouldn't you still be correct in your original assertion?

Just trying to make sure I understand everything being said....

The law for storage refers to people that carry under 6106b or 6109. When you OC you are carrying under neither so the law does not apply. This has been hashed out many times before in this forum, the general consensus is that if you do not fall under one of the exceptions or have a ltcf they do not have to store your firearm according to the letter of the law.

[MikeinPhilly]

I am not sure who is in charge of things at the court house, but if it is the President Judge, they just got a new one and now might be a good time to see if some changes can be made to bring them into compliance. The previous President Judge was there for 20 years.

[MrBi11]

18 Pa CS 913(e) Facilities for checking firearms or other dangerous weapons.--Each county shall make available at or within the building containing a court facility by July 1, 2002, lockers or similar facilities at no charge or cost for the temporary checking of firearms by persons carrying firearms under section 6106(b) or 6109 or for the checking of other dangerous weapons that are not otherwise prohibited by law.

Seems to me he wasn't checking it in under section 6106 or 6109 but under the "other" phrasing of the above.

[ViperGTS19801]

Seems to me he wasn't checking it in under section 6106 or 6109 but under the "other" phrasing of the above.

Ah. So the LTCF is not required for otherwise unprohibited actions such as non-Philadelphia open carry.

[Curmudgeon]

Seems to me he wasn't checking it in under section 6106 or 6109 but under the "other" phrasing of the above.

^Thread winner, IMHO.
.

[twency]

Seems to me he wasn't checking it in under section 6106 or 6109 but under the "other" phrasing of the above.

Good point.

[tl_3237]

Seems to me he wasn't checking it in under section 6106 or 6109 but under the "other" phrasing of the above.

I disagree.

The 'other dangerous weapons' excludes firearms since they were addressed in the previous clause. If your interpretation is correct, that the 'dangerous weapon clause' includes firearms, then there is no need, indeed it would be superfluous, to have the "of firearms by persons carrying firearms under section 6106(b) or 6109" clause - 6106(b) and 6109 carried firearms would also fall under the 'dangerous weapons' clause. Additionally, how do you interpret the contextual operation of the would 'other' in the statute?


Some of the general rules of statutory construction is:

1 Pa CS § 1921. Legislative intent controls

(a) The object of all interpretation and construction of statutes is to ascertain and effectuate the intention of the General Assembly. Every statute shall be construed, if possible, to give effect to all its provisions.

1 Pa CS § 1922. Presumptions in ascertaining legislative intent

In ascertaining the intention of the General Assembly in the enactment of a statute the following presumptions, among others, may be used:

(2) That the General Assembly intends the entire statute to be effective and certain.

[bogey1]

You cannot take the key, but you get an ID card for when you come back.

And DO NOT lose that card or you WILL NOT get your gun back says the lady behind the counter.

[Curmudgeon]

I disagree.

The 'other dangerous weapons' excludes firearms since they were addressed in the previous clause. If your interpretation is correct, that the 'dangerous weapon clause' includes firearms, then there is no need, indeed it would be superfluous, to have the "of firearms by persons carrying firearms under section 6106(b) or 6109" clause - 6106(b) and 6109 carried firearms would also fall under the 'dangerous weapons' clause. Additionally, how do you interpret the contextual operation of the would 'other' in the statute?


Some of the general rules of statutory construction is:

:facepalm:

It just doesn't make sense to me that the legislators would specifically disallow anyone unlicensed, like an open carrier, and use such convoluted wording to accomplish it. It seems inconsistent with everything else the law allows with regard to firearms.

I'm finding it difficult to make sense of all this, both sides of the argument.

[twency]

I disagree.

The 'other dangerous weapons' excludes firearms since they were addressed in the previous clause. If your interpretation is correct, that the 'dangerous weapon clause' includes firearms, then there is no need, indeed it would be superfluous, to have the "of firearms by persons carrying firearms under section 6106(b) or 6109" clause - 6106(b) and 6109 carried firearms would also fall under the 'dangerous weapons' clause. Additionally, how do you interpret the contextual operation of the would 'other' in the statute?


Some of the general rules of statutory construction is:

Consider that immediately prior to 1 Pa CS § 1922 (2.) comes this:

1. That the General Assembly does not intend a result that is absurd, impossible of execution or unreasonable.

Construing the statute in the manner you are suggesting would require courts to check firearms carried under 6106(b) or 6109 and/or any non-firearm lawful dangerous weapon, but not firearms carried without a license. So (where it's otherwise legal for you to have) the court would be required to provide a locker for your carried hunting knife, but not for your OCed 1911. That is, I think, either "absurd" or at least "unreasonable".

ETA:
Here's my stab at a "reasonable" interpretation of the underlying intent of the wording:

Each county shall make available ... lockers or similar facilities at no charge or cost for the temporary checking of dangerous weapons that are not otherwise prohibited by law, including but not limited to the checking of firearms by persons carrying firearms under section 6106(b) or 6109.

In other words, the lockers are supposed to be there so that whatever dangerous (but legal) stuff you have on you, you can lock up securely. The legislature wanted to emphasize the legality of using them for locking up firearms carried under 6106(b) or 6109, but didn't intend to limit their use only to firearms carried under those subsections and non-firearm dangerous weapons. Because that would be weird.