PA Title 34, Game & Wildlife code

[GFCLA]

While preparing to go for a walk in the woods middle of summer a PA State Trooper on routine patrol happened to see me prepping my rifle to take along, he advised me I was subject to arrest. I asked him on what grounds, he said having the rifle in my possession was prima facia evidence of hunting, asked why I would be carrying a rifle. I said for self defense and target shooting IF the opportunity to do so in a safe manner presented itself, he said that's what a concealed handgun permit is for (which I have and did have a handgun with me) and he let me go on about my business presumably as I had my teenage children with me. The next day I called the local game commission office, asked about this and was told the same. I suggested to the gentleman that if they saw me shoot a game animal, clean it or take it out of the woods yes they had me, but I had no idea merely going for a walk in the woods and taking a rifle along was a violation but there it is in Title 34 Game & Wildlife Code of PA. I haven't hunted in years and like all other laws couldn't possibly know or remember this was a violation of game laws.

Sec. 2301. Prima facie evidence of hunting.
(a) General rule.--For the purpose of this title, any one of the following acts shall constitute prima facie evidence of hunting:
(1) Possession of any firearm, bow and arrow, raptor, trap or other device of any description usable for the purpose of hunting or taking game or wildlife

Firearm is defined in Title 34 as follows:
"Firearm." An instrument used in the propulsion of shot, shell, bullet or any other object by the action of gunpowder exploded, explosive powder, the expansion of gas or the force of a mechanical device under tension.
(1) "Automatic." Any firearm which discharges more than once with a single pull of the trigger.
(2) "Semiautomatic." Any firearm which reloads without aid of the shooter, but fires only once with a single pull of the trigger.

This obvious contradiction in the law defies logic. It makes all PA license to carry (concealed) firearms null & void, saying ANY firearm 'of any description usable for the purpose of hunting or taking game or wildlife' is considered evidence of hunting. I loath making blanket statements but I'm tempted to say 2301 (a)(1) should be removed from Title 34 as it's too broad in it's language. As for the word 'usable', while it certainly wouldn't be my first choice, a .38 snubby could be used to shoot a deer.

Now, other than understanding the implied intent of the law, someone please explain to me anything I wrote that's incorrect.

[tl_3237]

While preparing to go for a walk in the woods middle of summer a PA State Trooper on routine patrol happened to see me prepping my rifle to take along, he advised me I was subject to arrest. I asked him on what grounds, he said having the rifle in my possession was prima facia evidence of hunting, asked why I would be carrying a rifle. I said for self defense and target shooting IF the opportunity to do so in a safe manner presented itself, he said that's what a concealed handgun permit is for (which I have and did have a handgun with me) and he let me go on about my business presumably as I had my teenage children with me. The next day I called the local game commission office, asked about this and was told the same. I suggested to the gentleman that if they saw me shoot a game animal, clean it or take it out of the woods yes they had me, but I had no idea merely going for a walk in the woods and taking a rifle along was a violation but there it is in Title 34 Game & Wildlife Code of PA. I haven't hunted in years and like all other laws couldn't possibly know or remember this was a violation of game laws.

Sec. 2301. Prima facie evidence of hunting.
(a) General rule.--For the purpose of this title, any one of the following acts shall constitute prima facie evidence of hunting:
(1) Possession of any firearm, bow and arrow, raptor, trap or other device of any description usable for the purpose of hunting or taking game or wildlife

Firearm is defined in Title 34 as follows:
"Firearm." An instrument used in the propulsion of shot, shell, bullet or any other object by the action of gunpowder exploded, explosive powder, the expansion of gas or the force of a mechanical device under tension.
(1) "Automatic." Any firearm which discharges more than once with a single pull of the trigger.
(2) "Semiautomatic." Any firearm which reloads without aid of the shooter, but fires only once with a single pull of the trigger.

This obvious contradiction in the law defies logic. It makes all PA license to carry (concealed) firearms null & void, saying ANY firearm 'of any description usable for the purpose of hunting or taking game or wildlife' is considered evidence of hunting. I loath making blanket statements but I'm tempted to say 2301 (a)(1) should be removed from Title 34 as it's too broad in it's language. As for the word 'usable', while it certainly wouldn't be my first choice, a .38 snubby could be used to shoot a deer.

Now, other than understanding the implied intent of the law, someone please explain to me anything I wrote that's incorrect.

Not true...


34 Pa CSA § 2525. Possession of firearm for protection of self or others.

(a) General rule.--It is lawful for a law enforcement officer
or any person who possesses a valid license to carry a firearm
issued under 18 Pa.C.S. § 6109 (relating to licenses) to be in
possession of a loaded or unloaded firearm while engaged in any
activity regulated by this title.
(b) Construction.--
(1) This section shall supersede any prohibition on the
possession of a firearm or ammunition contained in any other
provision of this title.
(2) This subsection shall not be construed to permit the
hunting or harvesting of any wildlife with a firearm or
ammunition not otherwise permitted by this title.
(c) Definitions.--As used in this section, the following
words and phrases shall have the meanings given to them in this
subsection:
"Firearm." As defined in 18 Pa.C.S. § 6102 (relating to
definitions).
"Law enforcement officer." As defined in 18 Pa.C.S. § 6102
(relating to definitions).

[knight0334]

This has been to the courts before about having a gun.. Most cases that I found required the subject to also be in the act of hunting or poaching too. ...like stalking game or firing at game - otherwise the mere possession of a gun in one's home would be prima facie evidence of hunting, which it isn't.

I couldn't find any case that went to a Superior or the Supreme court to become binding precedence on the matter, so that above is only minor dicta that you can argue.

[Statkowski]

Section 2301 of Title 34 says no firearms, period. If you have one, you're guilty of hunting. Firearms for this application include everything capable of sending a projectile downrange.

Section 2525 of Title 34, however, says firearms are okay if you have an LTCF. Firearms for this application, however, are limited to handguns, SBRs and SBSs.

Carry a long rifle and Section 2301 applies.

Right?

[R.W.J]

Section 2301 of Title 34 says no firearms, period. If you have one, you're guilty of hunting. Firearms for this application include everything capable of sending a projectile downrange.

Section 2525 of Title 34, however, says firearms are okay if you have an LTCF. Firearms for this application, however, are limited to handguns, SBRs and SBSs.

Carry a long rifle and Section 2301 applies.

Right?

In order for you to be cited the Officer or witness would have to see som other kind of hunting behavior or tactic.

[GunLawyer001]

Prima facie evidence means that it's enough evidence for the state to charge you, but you can still rebut that evidence with other evidence.

If the prohibition is superseded, then that's moot anyway. But just because you can be charged with something doesn't mean that you will be convicted. It's a hassle, and expensive, but you are entitled to introduce evidence that you have an LTCF and you always carry and that you have no prior history of poaching, or whatever else you have to rebut any presumption.

It's not completely unreasonable, it's similar in theory to finding someone on the end of a pier in possession of a lot of fishing tackle and bait. Mayeb they aren't fishing, maybe they're just seasoning their tackle....

[knight0334]

Section 2301 of Title 34 says no firearms, period. If you have one, you're guilty of hunting. Firearms for this application include everything capable of sending a projectile downrange.

Section 2525 of Title 34, however, says firearms are okay if you have an LTCF. Firearms for this application, however, are limited to handguns, SBRs and SBSs.

Carry a long rifle and Section 2301 applies.

Right?

But Magistrates and the Courts of Common Pleas have generally ruled that the subject must also be in the act of hunting/poaching too. Otherwise section 2301 would make the mere possession of any sort of gun even in your home prima facie evidence that you're hunting, yes - even in your own home because the law doesn't have a limitation to where it applies. Since that cannot be true, a requirement that you must actually be in the act of hunting/poaching must be made.

You cannot be guilty of hunting if you have a gun with you at the range, nor transporting it to a gunsmith, nor openly carrying it afoot downtown, nor when you're cleaning it in your den. You do have a right to patrol your property with a rifle. And you are not "hunting" so long as you are not aiming or taking shots at game, nor stalking or ambushing game.

[son of the revolution]

In order for you to be cited the Officer or witness would have to see som other kind of hunting behavior or tactic.

Maybe its just my simple mindedness or naivete' but wouldnt it be easier for all parties ( WCO and Citizens ) to just rewrite the applicable codes to reflect this ?

That there must be something MORE then just the fact the person is in possession of a firearm. Nothing as extreme as needing to see a truck bed full of carcasses, just something more then the mere fact the person in question has a gun. You would think in a State that is widely regarded as having pretty damn liberal ( meaning wide ranging ) Pro Gun laws that this would be the case.

[GFCLA]

Thank you to everyone who responded so far. This is exactly why I posted this, to see what would be said about it. It troubled me greatly that 1; the State Trooper said I could be cited for the mere possession of the rifle even though I wasn't hunting, 2; the gentleman I spoke with at the S.W. Regional Game Commission office said the same thing and 3; that like too many other laws 34-2301 (a)(1) is so open to interpretation by LE that even if a person was found not guilty that person still would have to go through all the embarrassment & inconvenience of the arrest, confiscation of personal property, expense of hiring a lawyer, lost work time/wages and appearance in court. Thank you to all who saw my point and especially 'son of revolution' for suggesting what I was thinking, that elimination of vague wording and/or a clearer definition of hunting might help to eliminate confusion.

I'd spoken with a co-worker who is also a part-time police officer a couple weeks after my walk in the woods (forgot to mention this tidbit previously), and he said that any land within the confines of the boundaries of the Commonwealth of PA that is not private property is by proxy property of the Commonwealth, ie: Government Property and as such one could be arrested for tresspassing on Gov't Property. I told that individual I think he should try for an LE career in North Korea or maybe China.

[TimeTraveler]

"that elimination of vague wording and/or a clearer definition of hunting might help to eliminate confusion."

This is an interesting thread. Vagueness is exactly what is intended when laws like this are written. Basically, your charged as guilty and it's up to the individual to spend money and time to defend yourself even if the LEO is wrong. Although your right about adding some clarification to the law, it is unlikely it will ever be done unless some lawmaker gets tripped up in this type of situation. Great system we have huh? (sarc).

"any land within the confines of the boundaries of the Commonwealth of PA that is not private property is by proxy property of the Commonwealth, ie: Government Property and as such one could be arrested for tresspassing on Gov't Property"

Can a person be charged with trespassing on PUBLIC land? What belongs to the Commonwealth belongs to the Public. (Yes/No)?????