Open carry law

[KeithPA]

http://www.bradycampaign.org/legisla...tate.php?st=pa

That's the Brady Campaign's website. Look under juvenile possession.

Juvenile Possession Law A- YES, must be 18 for all firearms

I'll try and find the actual statute.

You can click on the "ATF summary of state gun laws" I'll skim through it I can't remember what it is offhand.

[den9]

the brady campaign is just a crock of propaganda

[KeithPA]

the brady campaign is just a crock of propaganda

Ya I know but they do a good job of summarizing the laws (and bitching about how their not tough enough).

Top of page 5 lists possession of a firearm by a minor.

6110.1.(a). Firearm. Except as provided in subsection (b), a person under 18 years of age shall not possess or transport a firearm anywhere in this Commonwealth.

Forgot to put the link....

http://www.atf.treas.gov/firearms/st...nnsylvania.pdf

[Steve in PA]

You can legally receive a handgun without actually buying it because of this law;

§6111. Sale or transfer of firearms.

(c) Duty of other persons.—Any person who is not a licensed importer, manufacturer or dealer and who desires to sell or transfer a firearm to another unlicensed person shall do so only upon the place of business of a licensed importer, manufacturer, dealer or county sheriff’s office, the latter of whom shall follow the procedure set forth in this section as if he were the seller of the firearm. The provisions of this section shall not apply to transfers between spouses or to transfers between a parent and child or to transfers between grandparent and grandchild.


You must be 18 to legally be in possession of the firearm because of this law (please note the exceptions);

§6110.1. Possession of firearm by minor.

(a) Firearm.—Except as provided in subsection (b), a person under 18 years of age shall not possess or transport a firearm anywhere in this Commonwealth.
(b) Exception.—Subsection (a) shall not apply to a person under 18 years of age:
(1) who is under the supervision of a parent, grandparent, legal guardian or an adult acting with the expressed consent of the minor’s custodial parent or legal guardian and the minor is engaged in lawful activity, including safety training, lawful target shooting, engaging in an organized competition involving the use of a firearm or the firearm is unloaded and the minor is transporting it for a lawful purpose; or
(2) who is lawfully hunting or trapping in accordance with 34 Pa.C.S. (relating to game).
(c) Responsibility of adult.—Any person who knowingly and intentionally delivers or provides to the minor a firearm in violation of subsection (a) commits a felony of the third degree.
(d) Forfeiture.—Any firearm in the possession of a person under 18 years of age in violation of this section shall be promptly seized by the arresting law enforcement officer and upon conviction or adjudication of delinquency shall be forfeited or, if stolen, returned to the lawful owner.


As far as open carry, there is no law that says it is illegal, therefore it is legal. So with the above laws, and the lack of one, a person under 21yoa can legally own a handgun, can legally possess a handgun and can carry it openly.

A license to carry is for carrying concealed or in vehicle and cannot be obtained until you are 21yoa;

§6109. Licenses.

(a) Purpose of license.—A license to carry a firearm shall be for the purpose of carrying a firearm concealed on or about one’s person or in a vehicle throughout this Commonwealth.
(b) Place of application.—An individual who is 21 years of age or older may apply to a sheriff for a license to carry a firearm concealed on or about his person or in a vehicle within this Commonwealth. If the applicant is a resident of this Commonwealth, he shall make application with the sheriff of the county in which he resides or, if a resident of a city of the first class, with the chief of police of that city.

[Statkowski]

Just an observation, but earlier in this posting was a comment that a licensing requirement violated the state constitution.

As written, the state constitution states that the right to keep [own] and bear [carry] arms shall not be questioned. And, concerning open carry, this is so.

Concealed carry, for which a license is required, was viewed as "ungentlemanly" and it is for that purpose only that a license is indeed required, and the state supreme court agrees.

If you are indeed a "gentleman" or "gentlewoman" you can obtain a license to carry in a concealed manner with little to no problem at all. If you are none of the preceding and get caught carrying in such a manner, then you will be treated accordingly.

[DR. GLOCK]

Just an observation, but earlier in this posting was a comment that a licensing requirement violated the state constitution.

As written, the state constitution states that the right to keep [own] and bear [carry] arms shall not be questioned. And, concerning open carry, this is so.

Concealed carry, for which a license is required, was viewed as "ungentlemanly" and it is for that purpose only that a license is indeed required, and the state supreme court agrees.

If you are indeed a "gentleman" or "gentlewoman" you can obtain a license to carry in a concealed manner with little to no problem at all. If you are none of the preceding and get caught carrying in such a manner, then you will be treated accordingly.

The problem is; either concealed carry is legitimate for defense or not. If it IS then the law is very clear. "the right to keep [own] and bear [carry] arms shall not be questioned" in regards to defense. WORDS HAVE MEANING. A required lic IS UNconstitutional, Based on the rules of the English language. I did not write the constitution or the rules but I know how to read. The court believes it can redefine reality, only if people let them. The court interjects ambiguity where there is NONE in order to Redefine for the purpose of GETTING AWAY with changing the Constitution through improper (i.e. illegal) means.

[The Drew]

Keep in mind that the PA definition of "firearm" does not include long guns. Only NFA items and handguns.

[LittleRedToyota]

Just an observation, but earlier in this posting was a comment that a licensing requirement violated the state constitution.

As written, the state constitution states that the right to keep [own] and bear [carry] arms shall not be questioned. And, concerning open carry, this is so.

Concealed carry, for which a license is required, was viewed as "ungentlemanly" and it is for that purpose only that a license is indeed required, and the state supreme court agrees.

If you are indeed a "gentleman" or "gentlewoman" you can obtain a license to carry in a concealed manner with little to no problem at all. If you are none of the preceding and get caught carrying in such a manner, then you will be treated accordingly.

the state constitution does not say "the right to keep and bear arms in a gentlemanly manner shall not be questioned".

[ChamberedRound]

Just an observation, but earlier in this posting was a comment that a licensing requirement violated the state constitution.

As written, the state constitution states that the right to keep [own] and bear [carry] arms shall not be questioned. And, concerning open carry, this is so.

Concealed carry, for which a license is required, was viewed as "ungentlemanly" and it is for that purpose only that a license is indeed required, and the state supreme court agrees.

If you are indeed a "gentleman" or "gentlewoman" you can obtain a license to carry in a concealed manner with little to no problem at all. If you are none of the preceding and get caught carrying in such a manner, then you will be treated accordingly.

the state constitution does not say "the right to keep and bear arms in a gentlemanly manner shall not be questioned".

Let me preface this, as always, by saying I'm not a lawyer, so take it FWIW.

LRT,

The state constitution also doesn't say that "the right to keep and bear arms in a concealed manner shall not be questioned".

That's not what Statkowski is getting at, IMHO. Because the state constitution and the UFA states that open carry is allowed without restriction or permit needed, the state is not limiting anyone's right to unquestionably carry a firearm. They do question individuals' rights to carry concealed, but carrying concealed is not constitutionally protected. I don't like it, but that's seems to be how they're getting away with it.

Now, if open carry were regulated, or were to be banned, then a case could likely be made, as there would be no method of "keeping and bearing arms" that would be "unquestioned". The state has to protect some method carrying firearms unquestioned in order for the state's constitution to be upheld, but not necessarily all.

End of my $0.02.

[KeithPA]

Let me preface this, as always, by saying I'm not a lawyer, so take it FWIW.

LRT,

The state constitution also doesn't say that "the right to keep and bear arms in a concealed manner shall not be questioned".

That's not what Statkowski is getting at, IMHO. Because the state constitution and the UFA states that open carry is allowed without restriction or permit needed, the state is not limiting anyone's right to unquestionably carry a firearm. They do question individuals' rights to carry concealed, but carrying concealed is not constitutionally protected. I don't like it, but that's seems to be how they're getting away with it.

Now, if open carry were regulated, or were to be banned, then a case could likely be made, as there would be no method of "keeping and bearing arms" that would be "unquestioned". The state has to protect some method carrying firearms unquestioned in order for the state's constitution to be upheld, but not necessarily all.

End of my $0.02.

+1 That is my thought exactly. The only issue though with that line of thinking is, Philly. But Philly is a nation unto its own so....