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

[jpg5080]

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.

Right, I completely agree and this is what I originally thought. I was confused because Viper stated that it seemed he was mistaken, but I was pretty sure he was actually originally right.

[ungawa]

I handed over my DL - I understand wanting to match the person to the gun, that makes logical sense to me - but I told her that since I wasn't giving her my LTCF....

...PS. They have you keep the key while they hang onto your DL (and LTCF I guess, if you hand it over) - the more proper way to do it than keeping the key "secured" themselves.

If they are keeping my gun, they should be giving me their ID to hold onto, if anybody is giving anybody IDs.

[Mirlen]

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

So how's this work if you have an NFA SBR to check? I think I'd want that key...

[tl_3237]

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


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.

I don't think it absurd that the legislation only considered licensed/exempted firearm carriers for use of the lockboxes. In fact back in 1995 I wouldn't be surprised if OC was a best keep secret unbeknownst to many legislators.

If we look at the history of 913 we find its origin in Act 1995-17, 1st Sp.Sess. and it covered precisely the following:

(E) FACILITIES FOR CHECKING FIREARMS.--EACH COUNTY SHALL MAKE AVAILABLE, AT OR NEAR THE MAIN ENTRANCE TO THE COURTHOUSE, LOCKERS OR SIMILAR FACILITIES FOR THE TEMPORARY CHECKING OF FIREARMS BY PERSONS CARRYING FIREARMS UNDER SECTION 6106(B) OR 6109. (period emphasis mine)

Note the absence of the 'other' weapons' clause which was not added until Act 1999-59:

6 under section 6106(b) or 6109 or for the checking of other
7 dangerous weapons that are not otherwise prohibited by law. Any
8 individual checking a firearm, dangerous weapon or an item
9 deemed to be a dangerous weapon at a court facility must be
10 issued a receipt. Notice of the location of the facility shall
11 be posted as required under subsection (d).

So for the four years (95-99) there's no ambiguity that the lockboxes were restricted to licensed/exempted carried firearms ONLY. Legalistic absurd; I think not - its a limitation that obviously intended by the legislators but, whether by design to exclude OC, we can only conjecture without resorting to the legislative records.

Again, if 'other dangerous weapons' encompasses all firearms then one can only conclude that the first clause (licensed/exempted carriers) is superfluous. If the intent of the 1999 legislation was to expand the firearm category to all firearms including OC, as you suggest, and only maintain the original licensed/exempted firearms carrier for emphasis then, IMO, they would have added such words as 'including but not limited to' - they did not.

SCOTUS rules of interpretation:

The Superfluous Language Canon


Do not interpret a rule in such a way that makes some of the language inoperative, superfluous, void, or insignificant.
Cites:
1. Corley v. U.S., 129 S.Ct. 1558 (2009):
“[a] statute should be construed so that effect is given to all its provisions, so that no part will be inoperative or superfluous, void or insignificant”
2. D. Ginsberg & Sons v. Popkin, 52 S.Ct. 322 (1932):
“The construction contended for would violate the cardinal rule that, if possible, effect shall be given to every clause and part of a statute.”
3. TRW Inc. v. Andrews, 122 S.Ct. 441 (2001):
“It is a cardinal principle of statutory construction that a statute ought, upon the whole, to be so construed that, if it can be prevented, no clause, sentence, or word shall be superfluous, void, or insignificant.”

http://www.theruleslawyers.com/the-s...anguage-canon/



Of course much of this discussion would center around the definition of 'absurd' which, using Black's Law Dictionary (4th Ed.) we find:

ABSURDITY. That which is both physically and
morally impossible; and that is to be regarded as
morally impossible which is contrary to reason,
so that it could not be imputed to a man in his
right senses. State v. Hayes, 81 Mo. 574, 585.
Anything which is so irrational, unnatural, or inconvenient
that it cannot be supposed to have
been within the intention of men of ordinary intelligence
and discretion. Black, Interp. Laws,
104; Graves v. Scales, 172 N.C. 915, 90 S.E. 439;
obviously and flatly opposed to the manifest
truth; inconsistent with the plain dictates of
common sense; logically contradictory; nonsensical;
ridiculous. Wade v. Empire Dist. Electric

Co., 98 Kan. 366, 158 P. 28, 30.

As pro-gun people I'm sure we can up with many legal conundrums and inconsistencies that we may consider absurd, in a practicality sense, by our way of thinking.


As Mr. Bumble said in Oliver Twist:

The law is an ass

[ViperGTS19801]

Ugh. Confusing.

[Greywolf]

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

No, because he was checking a firearm, not an "other" weapon.

[twency]

Of course much of this discussion would center around the definition of 'absurd' which, using Black's Law Dictionary (4th Ed.) we find:

Ok, I'll stipulate that it's not absurd. But it is "unreasonable", which is also a result which should be avoided per the rules of interpretation.

It makes no sense that the law would be intended to say: You may check a firearm if you're carrying under a license, and you may check anything dangerous (but legal) except a gun without a license. It just doesn't make sense that that would be the intended result.

(Yeah, yeah, I'm probably fighting a losing battle on this. I'll let it go unless I can think of something different to say since I don't want to be a troll.)

[twency]

No, because he was checking a firearm, not an "other" weapon.

He was checking a firearm which was "other" than one carried under section 6106(b) or 6109.

...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.

Two categories of weapons:
1.) firearms under section 6106(b) or 6109
2.) other dangerous weapons that are not otherwise prohibited by law

A firearm can fall into either category. A firearm carried under a LTCF is in the first category. An OCed firearm is in the second category.

[bogey1]

So how's this work if you have an NFA SBR to check? I think I'd want that key...

They better be a class3 dealer? If they want to play by the rules.

[gascolator]

What do they do if you bring your halberd?