Man with concealed gun arrested at bus station

**gnbrotz** · February 25th, 2014, 05:10 PM

Originally Posted by SteelCityK9Cop

t.

"Officers patted down Hules and found a loaded 40-caliber Glock handgun inside his front waistband and his wallet in his rear right pants pocket."

Does not sound like OC to me.

It does to me:

Officers approached the man, observed a semi-automatic handgun in his front waistline and asked him to walk with them to a part of the lobby that had no other people.

**FlinchbaughD** · February 25th, 2014, 05:24 PM

No to sound ignorant but where is the line between open and concealed carry Obviously ones weapon being covered, by an object, is there any written description of Open Carry, stating the whole firearm must be visible, or a grip must be visible, anything of the sorts. Seem like an area for interpretation.

**Curmudgeon** · February 25th, 2014, 06:05 PM

Originally Posted by FlinchbaughD

No to sound ignorant but where is the line between open and concealed carry Obviously ones weapon being covered, by an object, is there any written description of Open Carry, stating the whole firearm must be visible, or a grip must be visible, anything of the sorts. Seem like an area for interpretation.

Neither open nor concealed carry are defined in the Uniform Firearms Act, that I know of.

**tl_3237** · February 25th, 2014, 06:35 PM

Originally Posted by FlinchbaughD

No to sound ignorant but where is the line between open and concealed carry Obviously ones weapon being covered, by an object, is there any written description of Open Carry, stating the whole firearm must be visible, or a grip must be visible, anything of the sorts. Seem like an area for interpretation.

As Curmudgeon correctly points out - Pa has no statutory definition.

Courts can and do look to other states for some guidance.

Quoting myself from an old thread:

Originally Posted by tl_3237

The issue of defining CC/OC has been discussed before.

http://forum.pafoa.org/general-2/711...ble-oc-cc.html
http://forum.pafoa.org/open-carry-14...have-open.html

Pa statutes do not provide a definition as to the demarcation between concealed and unconcealed. I have seen a few states define concealed such as in:

North Dakota Century Code
CHAPTER 62.1-04

CONCEALED WEAPONS 62.1-04-01. Definition of concealed. A firearm or dangerous weapon is concealed if it is carried in such a manner as to not be discernible by the ordinary observation of a passerby.
There is no requirement that there be absolute invisibility of the firearm or dangerous weapon, merely that it not be ordinarily discernible

.

This IMO is a reasonable working definition.

**redturbo0** · February 26th, 2014, 10:40 AM

I was always under the impression that if confronted while OC you aren't required to show your license to carry but if you're noticed while CC you should probably show your LTCF... Would that be correct?

**twency** · February 26th, 2014, 10:57 AM

Originally Posted by streaker69

Regardless, CC/OC we're still in an SOE, he's required to show it upon lawful demand.

If he was CCing then yes, but if he was OCing and not in a vehicle then 18 Pa.C.S. § 6122 doesn't appear to apply to him.

(a) General rule.--When carrying a firearm concealed on or about one's person or in a vehicle, an individual licensed to carry a firearm shall, upon lawful demand of a law enforcement officer, produce the license for inspection. Failure to produce such license either at the time of arrest or at the preliminary hearing shall create a rebuttable presumption of nonlicensure.
(b) Exception.--An individual carrying a firearm on or about his person or in a vehicle and claiming an exception under section 6106(b) (relating to firearms not to be carried without a license) shall, upon lawful demand of a law enforcement officer, produce satisfactory evidence of qualification for exception.

Strictly speaking, if he were OCing outside Philly, not in a vehicle, nor during a state of emergency, he would be claiming an exemption under § 6109 and there doesn't appear to be a statutory requirement to produce "upon lawful demand".

18 Pa.C.S. § 6107: Prohibited conduct during emergency
(a) General rule.--No person shall carry a firearm upon the public streets or upon any public property during an emergency proclaimed by a State or municipal governmental executive unless that person is:
(1) Actively engaged in a defense of that person's life or property from peril or threat.
(2) Licensed to carry firearms under section 6109 (relating to licenses) or is exempt from licensing under section 6106(b) (relating to firearms not to be carried without a license).

That said, if the police said they had probable cause to believe he was violating § 6122 then I doubt a judge would find they acted improperly by demanding his license.

**MikeB0** · March 9th, 2014, 12:34 PM

Not sure how they expect the charge to stick.

(a) General rule.--When carrying a firearm concealed on or about one's person or in a vehicle, an individual licensed to carry a firearm shall, upon lawful demand of a law enforcement officer, produce the license for inspection. Failure to produce such license either at the time of arrest or at the preliminary hearing shall create a rebuttable presumption of nonlicensure.

He may have at first refused to produce the license, but told them where to find it prior to the arrest and can produce it at the preliminary hearing.

**GunLawyer001** · March 9th, 2014, 01:13 PM

Originally Posted by MikeB0

Not sure how they expect the charge to stick.

He may have at first refused to produce the license, but told them where to find it prior to the arrest and can produce it at the preliminary hearing.

A preliminary issue for the DA is that the cops only approached the defendant because of the visible gun. Hard to argue that they had PC for a detention based on the clearly visible gun, and also that he was carrying it "concealed".

It was either hidden, or everyone could see that he had a gun. You don't get to alter reality and answer the question both ways for the same situation. Every holstered gun is partially obscured by the holster, the view that "any degree of concealment is enough to be concealed" would nullify all OC except for transport on foot with the gun resting on one's open palm. (This is a fact question for the jury; as citizens we need to apply some common sense here.)

Unless he was carrying concealed, the "proof of license" statute wouldn't apply here.

**GunLawyer001** · May 19th, 2014, 08:45 PM

Originally Posted by Deadpan

Update:

The § 6122 charge was withdrawn.

Interesting. There's been some debate about the penalty for refusing to show the license, if you are licensed.

One school of thought is that refusing to show the license is a violation of 6122, and falls into the default M-1 penalty for all other unspecified violations of the UFA.

The other possibility is that the penalty is limited to what the statute says, that refusal creates a presumption that you have to overcome in court, by showing the license to the judge/jury. Perhaps that's the way they went here. It would make the most sense, there's no reasonable way to equate "I left my license at home" with other serious crimes that rate the highest misdemeanor classification.