can any arm chair lawyers clear up some things? ( real lawyers and LEO welcome :) )

[mpan72]

I might as well jump on too. They are spewing the same rhetoric I have heard out of many uninformed mouths. Some of those statements are "common knowledge" to know-it-all types.

[7thmoosefromtheleft]

this is what I thought, to be fair they have been right on many more accounts, then these three they are wrong on, and even though they are wrong, I still give them credit for the other information I have revived that I have found to be valid. thanks for clearing this up guys,

[Statkowski]

... even though they are wrong, I still give them credit for the other information I have revived that I have found to be valid.

Even a stopped clock is correct twice a day.

[normanvin]

this is what I thought, to be fair they have been right on many more accounts, then these three they are wrong on, and even though they are wrong, I still give them credit for the other information I have revived that I have found to be valid. thanks for clearing this up guys,

I hope you have verified what they have said to be correct.

[internet troll]

having a discussion with two people who I highly respect, some information came about that I felt was inaccurate. both these people are part of a town watch, ex military ( honorable discharge) and well versed in ccw law. both over 50 as well. they said that
1. open carry is illegal for any one who has a valid LTCF.
2. CC of a fixed blade knife is illegal if it is bigger than 4 in,
3. if confronted with a person who is wielding a knife, and I shoot them I WILL go to jail no matter what, in other words, I need to meet the level of force I am confronted with.

I did a little goggling and I can find nothing supporting this, I am talking completely illegal not uneducated officer deciding it is illegal.
for example, question 1. I am jogging day time public street, open carry hand gun cop stops me looks at my firearm sees I have LTCF and I get arrested. because I am open carrying and have my LTCF.
ex 2. I am carrying a 5 in knife iwb, jogging day time public street ( we will assume local laws do not apply) same as before cop stops me and arrest me for having a large fixed blade knife on me.
ex 3. angry person yells and starts cursing unintelligibly, pulls a knife and charges at me, I draw my gun and shoot, killing him. am I in legal trouble?
ex 3 A what If I could have escaped?

thanks in advance, any farther question on details I will provide if needed, but I left this a little ambulations intentional

If they are so well versed in law, have them show you the Pa statutes that support their position, I suspect you will be met by blank stares.

And for your own edification, some of the Pa statute related to Firearms.

http://reference.pafoa.org/statutes/

[mmi]

all i know Holly hand grenade can only be used against satanic rabbits in pa

[GunLawyer001]

If they are so well versed in law, have them show you the Pa statutes that support their position, I suspect you will be met by blank stares.

And for your own edification, some of the Pa statute related to Firearms.

http://reference.pafoa.org/statutes/

They may point to this:

18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6109
§ 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.

That sentence serves no real purpose, which is unfortunate, because the courts presume that every word of every statute must have a function.

In this case, it does not.

For one thing, you'll notice that it omits the key verb, the part about "doing something" with a license. The existence of the license, by itself, has NO PURPOSE AT ALL. It's legal to have an LTCF and not own any guns, and never leave the house, meaning that possession of the LTCF is a nullity for you. Having one doesn't REQUIRE you to carry a firearm, or carry one in a vehicle. You're still allowed to stay home and watch "American Idol".

It should read "having a license to carry firearms is a defense, or nullifies an element of an offense, with regard to certain state and Federal criminal statutes". In other words, it prevents a charge of carrying without a license, it may be recognized by other states, it's an element to allow you to carry in a Federal gun-free school zone.

I had one idiot from the MontCo DA's office charge my client with violation of § 6109(a). Even the blatantly pro-police DJ (an ex-cop himself) wouldn't buy that at the prelim. It's not a criminal statute. It's a comment, and it should be removed by the Legislature, or fixed so that it adds something to the UFA.

The example that I've been giving for quite a few years now, has been some flavor of "you can walk or ride a bike if you don't have a driver's license; getting a driver's license means that it's no longer illegal for you to drive; it doesn't mean that you gave up the right to walk or ride a bike."

As for the knife issues, those comments are just stupid. Seriously, not something that deep thinkers would tolerate for 2 seconds. It would require a man with a gun to ONLY use equal weapons (on some "lethality scale" that nobody has ever seen), or die while being stabbed because it would be "unfair" to use a gun when his mugger only has a knife.

What if he had a length of pipe and his attacker had a brick? What if the attacker had a knife and the defender only had a hammer?

Seriously, that's stupid beyond words. And if the logic escapes the cop buddies, ask them to explain the Zimmerman trial, where Poor Little Saint Trayvon had no gun, and all he could do was straddle Evil White Hispanic George and bash his head against the concrete until brain matter was released. Was George required to find a slab of concrete of his own? Hell no, he recognized unprovoked deadly force, and he was permitted to use whatever he had to stop it.

[GunLawyer001]

Here are some other variations of the argument, from years past:


February 19th, 2011
That's right, having a PA LTCF doesn't give you FEWER rights, it allows you to do MORE.

Police have stated (less often these days, because education is occurring) that having an LTCF means that you MUST conceal. This is not true, not anywhere in PA (not even in Philadelphia, which requires an LTCF for any and all possession of firearms anywhere outside your home (with the usual very specific and limited exceptions for ranges, gun shops and direct non-stop travel between them and your home; see the statute for details.))

The "licenses" statute begins:
§ 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.

That's most of why you would need a license. It doesn't reverse-affect your rights and require you to carry it concealed, any more than it requires you to transport it in a vehicle instead of on foot. It simply allows you to carry it concealed or in a vehicle without violating PA law.

Simply put: If you conceal, you must have a license. The reverse is not true: if you have a license, you do not need to conceal.
Having a driver's license doesn't mean that you can no longer walk or ride a bicycle. It gives you more options, that's all.

Here's the short answer: the purpose of an LTCF is to make lawful some acts that would be unlawful without an LTCF.

Open carry outside of Philadelpia is not unlawful without an LTCF, so it's unaffected by you having one or not.

Transport of any kind in a vehicle without an LTCF is unlawful (except for the specific exceptions, like going to the range, bringing it home after purchase, etc). Having it in the glovebox without an LTCF is illegal, but with an LTCF it's legal.

I have two analogies for this:

I can ride a bicycle with or without a driver's license. Getting a DL doesn't stop me from riding my bike, it just gives me additional options to drive a car. Open carry is like that, outside Philadelphia, the LTCF allows me to continue to OC or to start CC'ing.

If I jump from the roof of my house, I need a net to catch me so I don't painfully impact the ground, just as I need an LTCF to carry concealed or in a vehicle so I don't painfully impact the UFA. But if I buy such a net, I'm not actually required to jump off my roof, nor does an LTCF require me to start carrying concealed.

I had the MontCo DA's office add a charge against one of my OC clients based on that bit of verbiage, "§ 6109. Licenses. - 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."

I assume that the ADA was a lawyer, had passed the bar exam, and spoke English, yet he tried to create a criminal charge out of a bit of explanation. The DJ tossed that one, but the lack of understanding of the UFA by that ADA was discouraging. Criminal statutes generally contain a phrase like "shall not" or "it is an offense to" or "now, don't nobody be doing this". In this case, it was like charging somebody with violating a definition.

A tactic that may work with people who have an unfounded know-it-all attitude is to call them on the specifics. If someone says "that's illegal", you might look interested and ask "really, they amended Title 18, Chapter 61? When was that, did they change 6106, or did they rework 6108?"; say that your copy of the PA Crimes Code hasn't been updated since January. Act as though you are seeking information, as though this dweeb might really be in possession of more current information, and you'd appreciate the update.

Since they won't have a clue, they won't bluff with the usual "been that way for years" tripe. If it's a cop, ask him for his copy of the Crimes Code after you've said this.

The usual uninformed police argument is that Section 6109(a) says that the purpose of a license is for concealed or vehicular carry. What they don't think through is the question of what that means for a person without a license, and whether they are seriously making the argument that obtaining an LTCF means that you lose your right to openly carry.

It's like having a motorcycle license, but choosing to ride a bicycle. Riding the motorcycle without the license is illegal, but riding the bicycle is not. Obtaining your motorcycle license doesn't somehow erase your right to ride the bicycle, even though it's true that the purpose of a motorcycle license is for riding a motorcycle. The motorcycle license is irrelevant to riding a bicycle. Having an LTCF is irrelevant to open carry, except in Philadelphia.

[elweasel]

Every time you mention bicycle and motorcycle, I keep asking myself. What is the differences between a motorbike and a pedal bike. If I OC and jump on a bike and ride without a ltcf, Am I breaking the law like if I did that on a motorbike? Would the firearm have to be on my person, or could I mount it on the bicycle? Thanks






___________________________________
My Post My questions
Fat bottomed girls they'll be riding today
So look out for those beauties oh yeah
On your marks get set go...

[IIIIIREPOIIIII]

Fail+Fail+Fail=Facepalm!


Posted from Pafoa.org App for Android