Does the UFA ban non-LTCF holders from borrowing handguns?

[Mike]

Well, as we know, the text of Section 6115 only bans "lending," not borrowing, just like § 6111 only bans the seller from transferring a handgun to a buyer without a dealer/Sheriff PICS check - the borrowing purchase or receipt of a handgun, transferred or lent in violation of 6111 or 6115, is not unlawful at least by the looks of the text of the statute.

Only one case on 6115 pops up in WestLaw - Commonwealth v. Rodriguez, 1992 WL 524254 (Pa. Com. Pl. 1992) (holding that lending handguns to non-LTCF holders is not a violation of Section 6115 unless the borrower is a prohibited person).

What appears to have happenned after Rodriguez is that the legislature in 1995, Act 17?, added the bolded language below into Section 6115:

"Offense defined.—No person shall make any loan secured by mortgage, deposit or pledge of a firearm, nor, except as pro*vided in subsection (b), shall any person lend or give a firearm to another or otherwise deliver a firearm contrary to the provisions of this subchapter."

But still, from the text, it appears that it is not a crime for a non-LTCF holder to borrow a handgun. So it is curious why the Dickson City police acted like it was a crime by insisting on checking serial numbers, seizing one gun, and physically transferring a gun to another person who was not the owner.

What is particularly galling about the Dickson City police treatment of the PSP handgun record of transfer database is their treatment, even in the police report, of the database as a registry of ownership.

This behavior directly offends the Pennsylavania Supreme Court's declaration that "the database maintained by the Pennsylvania State Police is merely a record of handgun sales and does not qualify as a “registry of firearm ownership” as prohibited by Section 6111.4." Allegheny County Sportsmen's League v. Rendell, 860 A.2d 10, 22 (Pa. 2004).

Further, the Court said that "the Pennsylvania State Police's non-ownership-registry purpose in maintaining the database, i.e., to assist in criminal investigations and in returning guns to their lawful owners pursuant to Section 6111.1(b)(4). Thus, if a handgun were involved in a criminal investigation or misplaced by the owner, the Pennsylvania State Police could contact the [last] purchaser of the gun." 860 A.2d at 22, n.7 (emphasis added).

And said "the applications/records of sale cannot be used to establish a registry of firearm ownership, i.e., a registry that tracks individuals who have possession and control over firearms." 860 A.2d at 23 (emphasis added).

And the Court noted that the PSP record of transfer database does not at all pertain to the ownership of handguns: "Section 6111.4 only prohibits a registry of ownership and, therefore, the dispositive issue is what is being registered by the Pennsylvania State Police- i.e., whether the database is a record of firearm ownership or of something else. The Firearms Act does not define ownership, but the common definition is: “the state of fact of being an owner; legal right of possession.” Webster's New World Dictionary (2nd College Edition), p. 1016 (1986). Additionally, the term “own” is defined as “to possess; hold as personal property.” Id., at p. 1015. In examining the contents of the Pennsylvania State Police's database, it becomes clear that, although the database may be a registry, it is not a registry of firearm ownership.

It is undisputed that the database at issue is not a registry of ownership, but rather, merely reflects the applications/records of sale for handgun purchases that occur in Pennsylvania. The database does not maintain a record of all firearms owned by Pennsylvanians, which would include long guns, or firearms that are owned by Pennsylvanians, but not purchased in the Commonwealth. Additionally, the database of handgun sales does not include handguns that are transferred between spouses, parents and children, and grandparents and grandchildren. See 18 Pa.C.S. § 6111(c). Nor is the database a survey of existing ownership. The database maintained by the Commonwealth merely contains information regarding the sales of handguns in the Commonwealth. Such a database does not amount to a “registry of firearm ownership” as prohibited by the Firearms Act." 860 A.2d at 22-23 (emphasis added).

[knight0334]

Splitting hairs with the meaning of words will only come back to bite you. Just like the carry/carries/transport thing.

For you to borrow a pistol from someone, the other has to lend it to you lawfully - otherwise it is stolen. For them to lend/loan it to you without doing a lawful transfer(@ FFL/Sheriff) - you must have a LTCF or be doing some target/sporting activities or one of the other exemptions.

The problem with the database/registry thing is a whole other issue only partly related. A person could have lawfully obtained a firearm by means other than through a dealer/sheriff in PA. examples: as a resident in another state, through interstate succession/bequeath, gifts/sales/inheritance from direct family members, created the firearm from scratch, etc, etc. No law prohibits the possession of a firearm that isn't in the "database", only the concealed carrying or carrying in a vehicle without a LTCF. What that town did to PA Patriot was theft(not to mention the other rights violations). They had no authority to take the firearm since there was no crime committed with it, nor was it contra-band.

[Mike]

For you to borrow a pistol from someone, the other has to lend it to you lawfully - otherwise it is stolen.

Cite? What statute makes it "theft" to borrow handgun where the lender broke the law in lending it to you?

[knight0334]

Cite? What statute makes it "theft" to borrow handgun where the lender broke the law in lending it to you?

No law makes it theft if they lend it to you. What makes it theft is when you borrowed it and they didn't lend it to you.

If they didn't lend it to you, and you "borrowed" it - its theft(take without permission). And for them to lend it to you lawfully - you have to fall within the exemptions. If your possession has resulted from an improper loan/lend, it could be construed to be a unlawful transfer. Which could have a number of possible senario's.. The firearm seized to find the true owner, the "true" owner can revert his story to cover his ass which would make your possession theft, and I'm sure several other things could happen.


This constant attempt to circumnavigate laws that are easy to abide by or dig for new meanings is really getting old. Just get a LTCF so you can "lend/borrow" firearms from the non relatives. And so you can "transport" them in a vehicle.

Even if a court rules one way or another - so long as the law is on the books you can be arrested for the same thing time and time again to be as challenges to the prior court opinions.

[Mike]

No law makes it theft if they lend it to you. What makes it theft is when you borrowed it and they didn't lend it to you.

If they didn't lend it to you, and you "borrowed" it - its theft(take without permission). And for them to lend it to you lawfully - you have to fall within the exemptions. If your possession has resulted from an improper loan/lend, it could be construed to be a unlawful transfer. Which could have a number of possible senario's.. The firearm seized to find the true owner, the "true" owner can revert his story to cover his ass which would make your possession theft, and I'm sure several other things could happen.


This constant attempt to circumnavigate laws that are easy to abide by or dig for new meanings is really getting old. Just get a LTCF so you can "lend/borrow" firearms from the non relatives. And so you can "transport" them in a vehicle.

Even if a court rules one way or another - so long as the law is on the books you can be arrested for the same thing time and time again to be as challenges to the prior court opinions.

I still see no cite to authority - not even a statute, let alone a case. I can find no cases construing 6115 or 6111 as making it unlawful to receive a handgun where the lender or transferor has broken the law. This random kind of thinking about criminal statutes is what got us into the myth that open carry was illegal in PA.

And there is no law against non-LTCF holders "transporting" handguns in vehicle - only 6106 that says you can't "carry" one in vehicles - please stop using the word "transport" in ref to 6106.

[headcase]

If you can legally possess a firearm, someone lending you one is not a legal problem for you, but for them. Can they say you stole it to cover their ass? Sure. But that assumes they will lie. If the question is to be answered, in the light in which I believe it was asked, then the DC police had no right, what so ever, to take the firearm from the person who they said was not the owner, and give it to his wife, who was present and, although unnecessarily, confirming the loan. Nor did they have the right to confiscate Rich's weapon because it was not "registered to him", or was "not in the database". I truly hope this database issue is made a large part of any litigation that may be planned. Records of purchases should not be accessible except by court order, if they are allowed to be kept at all. The state police should be vigorously prosecuted for allowing access to information that they are well aware is being used for unlawful purposes. That is going to take a criminal complaint from someone who was subjected to it's use, IMO.


ETA~ YOU CAN NOT TRANSPORT A FIREARM IN A VEHICLE IN THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, WITHOUT A LTCF, UNLESS EXEMPTED BY 6106b. IF CAUGHT DOING SO, YOU WILL BE ARRESTED AND CHARGED WITH A 3RD DEGREE FELONY. TO BELIEVE OTHERWISE IS YOUR RIGHT, BUT TO PRACTICE THAT BELIEF WILL GET YOU ARRESTED. THEN YOU MAY HAVE YOUR DAY IN COURT TO FIND OUT WHETHER OR NOT YOUR BELIEF WAS VALID.

[knight0334]

I still see no cite to authority - not even a statute, let alone a case. I can find no cases construing 6115 or 6111 as making it unlawful to receive a handgun where the lebder ot transferor has broken the law. This random kind of thinking about criminal statutes is what got us into the myth that oepn carry was illegal in PA.

And there is no law against non-LTCF holders "transporting" handguns in vehicle - only 6106 that says you can;t "carry" one in vehicles - please stop using the word "transport" in ref to 6106.

And again ....OLD TOPIC. nothing says the transferee/lendee has broken the law - only the transferor or lender. How many times does that have to be repeated at this site???? However you are committing conspiracy if you and the transferor/lender agree to circumnavigate the law knowingly without going through the defined channels of loaning/lending or transferring.

Carry was given definition in a USSC case(go through the last 500 of my posts and you will find it). Its you all that keep trying to split the meaning of carry/carries and transport. This too is an old topic - read 6106(2)(B)1-15 again. Its quite simple what the meaning of carry is the same since you cant "carry"(how we define carry) a firearm while its in a "secure wrapper"(case, box, etc) as referred to in 6106(2)(b)(8). And why would there be separate destinations as to where & why you can "carry" a firearm to/from?

"Any person while carrying a firearm unloaded and in a secure wrapper from the place of purchase to his home or place of business, or to a place of repair or back to his home or place of business, or in moving from one place of abode or business to another or from his home to a vacation or recreational home or dwelling or back, or to recover stolen property under section"


Just get a LTCF or reciprocal license and stop grasping at straw.

This topic keeps getting asked time and time again in the hopes that someone say something that sounds like how things should be. A blood covered red apple is still red no matter what even if someone says it's blue.

[Mike]

ETA~ YOU CAN NOT TRANSPORT A FIREARM IN A VEHICLE IN THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, WITHOUT A LTCF, UNLESS EXEMPTED BY 6106b. IF CAUGHT DOING SO, YOU WILL BE ARRESTED AND CHARGED WITH A 3RD DEGREE FELONY. TO BELIEVE OTHERWISE IS YOUR RIGHT, BUT TO PRACTICE THAT BELIEF WILL GET YOU ARRESTED. THEN YOU MAY HAVE YOUR DAY IN COURT TO FIND OUT WHETHER OR NOT YOUR BELIEF WAS VALID.

Funny, no statute says this, and no cases appear to exist to back you up, except for the one where a judge refuse to let a jury convict for handgun possession in a trunk.

[headcase]

Funny, you use the fact that there was a gun in the trunk and that the conviction was reversed as proof, but you are trying to pull the wool over our eyes. You paraphrase the actual words of the decision, until asked about it, then you post the whole decision, and it turns out there were circumstances that allowed for the defendant to be exempted under 6106b(4). You just used a case result that had nothing to do with your assertion, knowingly omitting specifics, just so people would see you have a cite to back up your position. Your credibility just went down the crapper....

[Mike]

And again ....OLD TOPIC. nothing says the transferee/lendee has broken the law - only the transferor or lender. How many times does that have to be repeated at this site???? However you are committing conspiracy if you and the transferor/lender agree to circumnavigate the law knowingly without going through the defined channels of loaning/lending or transferring.

Carry was given definition in a USSC case(go through the last 500 of my posts and you will find it).

Conspiracy now? What conpiracy statute? What case? There appear to be not a single case on any borrower or transforee being convicted of a 6115 or 6111 violation. And in Commonwealth v. Rodriguez, it was the lender, not the borrower, that the Commonwealth tried to prosecute.

And while YOUR ARE CORRECT the U.S. S. Ct. case of Muscarello (gun possessed in trunk is a violation of drug trafficing law against carrying guns while dealing drugs) is not a good case for the idea that 6106 does not reach the trunk, the court was sharply divided and state courts which have taken notice of Muscarello have declined to follow its invitation to construe gun possession broadly when construing state law. E.g., People v. Pena, 88 Cal.Rptr.2d 656 (Cal.App. 5 Dist.,1999); State v. Petrak, 8 P.3d 1174 (Ariz. App. Div. 1 2000); State v. Blanchard, 776 So.2d 1165 (La. 2001).

Bottom line, the text of 6106 does not ban "transport," and no PA case we know of suggests it does, and regardless, FOPA appears to apply as a last ditch defense to trunk carry.