Any way for 18 year olds to carry?

[streaker69]

Although she did change several reciprocity agreements to restrict recognition of ones issued to 'non-residents' of the issuing states, the blanket proscription comes from case law:



Com. v. McKown, 79 A. 3d 678 - Pa: Superior Court 2013

fuckstick (not you, the person the case is named after)

[phillyd2]

Damn if these rules on personal attacks are not impossible to follow!

[ungawa]

I suspect that, upon appealing ones conviction after proffering the non-reciprocal defense, the same court system that gave us McKown will give us a less restrictive ruling restriction.

For the defendant/appellant - his probable final disposition:

Oh, no doubt, I learned it from either you or Knight, not my original idea.

Lets see:

- The law says you can. With no ambiguity.

- Case law, with ZERO justification, says you can't, for states that have reciprocity

I realize we live in a nation with no rule of law or justice and Harvard should be burnt to the ground and all of their tenured lined up against the wall. And anybody that says, "We have the worst legal system in the world, except for everybody else" is now WRONG. Europeans actually have rights that are respected by the government no matter what, we have NONE.

But, that being said, it would be the weakest possible argument to say a PA resident carrying in a car under the license of a state with no reciprocity is in violation of the UFA. There is ZERO statutory or regulatory basis for this, not even a hint of it, and it would require expanding case law that is without basis and does not make mention of it.

Even in our legal system I can't see how they can legally convict somebody of this. That being said, many of them are not honorable people, and will probably do whatever they feel like.

[ungawa]

fuckstick (not you, the person the case is named after)

That's Mr. McFuckstick to you.

Funny that nobody around here here ever complains about the judge that actually nullified the UFA.

[tl_3237]

Oh, no doubt, I learned it from either you or King, not my original idea.

Lets see:

- The law says you can. With no ambiguity.

- Case law, with ZERO justification, says you can't, for states that have reciprocity

I realize we live in a nation with no rule of law or justice and Harvard should be burnt to the ground and all of their tenured lined up against the wall. And anybody that says, "We have the worst legal system in the world, except for everybody else" is now WRONG. Europeans actually have rights that are respected by the government no matter what, we have NONE.

But, that being said, it would be the weakest possible argument to say a PA resident carrying in a car under the license of a state with no reciprocity is in violation of the UFA. There is ZERO statutory or regulatory basis for this, not even a hint of it, and it would require expanding case law that is without basis and does not make mention of it.
Even in our legal system I can't see how they can legally convict somebody of this. That being said, many of them are not honorable people, and will probably do whatever they feel like.

Before McKown I would agree with you.

I think that any such defense proffered today would probably be rejected at the trial court level by applying the McKown appellate decision and most certainly would fail in the follow on appeal to the Superior Court. They would either summarily dispose of the appeal as agreeing with the lower court's application of the existing case law or simply establish an extension to the case law by reliance on the identical agruments to disallow a Pa resident the protection of §6106(b)(13) in all cases. I say that considering:

1. The Superior Court case law holding limited itself to "reciprocated" licenses solely because McKown raised the issue under the guise of applying 18 Pa CS 6106(b)(15);
   
   
2. At the outset the court found that McKown's NH license was void due to the fact that he had no valid LTCF and hence its issuance was contrary to NH law. That basically settled that issue of the appeal then and there. However, our 'fine' justices decided to go that one step further:
   

   At the outset, we note that the trial court concluded that Appellant's "New Hampshire permit was not validly or lawfully issued," and thus, he did not meet the requirements of section 6101(b)(15). Trial Court Opinion (Judge Milliron), 3/18/11 at 9. Stating that "under New Hampshire law, an out-of-state applicant for a concealed carry license must present a valid concealed carry license from his or her resident state," the trial court found that "[Appellant's] Pennsylvania license had been revoked the day before" he applied to New Hampshire. Id. at 2, 9.[5] Although we agree with the trial court, we decline to dispose of Appellant's first issue on this basis alone and, thus, address the remaining statutory arguments raised on appeal.

3. Within the legal logic(?) that allowed(?) the Superior Court to reach the case law we discuss they also established dicta that in essence defines "any person", as used within the exceptions of §6106, to exclude Pa residents - that interpretation based on the supposition that the specificity of §6109 outweighs the "any person" generality of §6106(b).
   

   Regardless, we cannot accept Appellant's construction of the other statutory provisions at issue. In responding to the Commonwealth's argument regarding 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6109, Appellant claims that, because the first sentence of section 6109(b) uses the word "may," the balance of the subsection is optional. Appellant's Brief at 11. Such a reading is absurd. The word "may" is used to explain that an individual may wish to carry a concealed weapon in Pennsylvania. If a person wishes to carry a concealed weapon and if he is a resident of Pennsylvania, he shall make application to the county sheriff or chief of police if residing in Philadelphia. "[W]hen a statute contains the word `shall,' it is `by definition mandatory, and is generally applied as such.'" In re A.B., 987 A.2d 769, 775 (Pa.Super.2009) (quoting Chanceford Aviation Properties, L.L.P. v. Chanceford Tp. Bd. of Supervisors, 592 Pa. 100, 923 A.2d 1099, 1104 (2007)). There is nothing optional with respect to whether a Pennsylvania license is required for a Pennsylvania resident who wants to carry a concealed weapon in Pennsylvania. 687*687 Here, Appellant was a resident of Pennsylvania, and he did not have a valid Pennsylvania license.
   
   Furthermore, nowhere does the statute provide that a Pennsylvania resident may substitute a foreign state's license. Appellant attempts to utilize the general language from section 6106(b)(15) that provides an exception to the crime of carrying a firearm without a license. We are not persuaded.
   
   The Pennsylvania Rules of Statutory Construction state that the particular terms of a statute control the general terms, and the specific terms shall be construed as an exception to the general rule. 1 Pa.C.S.A. § 1933. Here, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6106(b)(15) uses the general term "any person," while 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6109(b) pertains to the specific circumstance where a resident of Pennsylvania applies to carry a concealed firearm within Pennsylvania. As explained above, a resident of Pennsylvania who desires to carry a concealed firearm in Pennsylvania shall apply for licensure with the sheriff of the county in which he resides, or if a resident of Philadelphia, the chief of police. 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6109(b). In construing the Act to give effect to all of its provisions, we hold that a Pennsylvania resident who does not have a valid Pennsylvania license issued under the Pennsylvania Uniform Firearms Act may not carry a firearm in a vehicle or concealed on or about his person in Pennsylvania under the authority of a permit issued by another state that has reciprocity with Pennsylvania. Accordingly, Appellant's claim fails.[7]
   

4. McKown was charged with CC and not vehicle carry - both of which would have been legal had he had a valid reciprocated NH license. The issue of the §6106(b)(13) exception, which includes recognition of non-reciprocated licenses for vehicular carry only, was not before the bar and hence not addressed. In my mind, there is little doubt that a review of a similar case where a Pa resident claims such the vehicle exception under the authority of a non-reciprocated license would meet an identical fate (appeal denied) because of the case law interpretation of the "any person" subject as well as the statutory scope of §6109:
   
   

   (13) Any person who is otherwise eligible to possess a
   firearm under this chapter and who is operating a motor
   vehicle which is registered in the person's name or the name
   of a spouse or parent and which contains a firearm for which
   a valid license has been issued pursuant to section 6109 to
   the spouse or parent owning the firearm.

   
   
   

   § 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.

IMO, any Pa resident that vehicle carries in reliance of a non-reciprocated license does so at great legal peril.

[twency]

Damn if these rules on personal attacks are not impossible to follow!

The rule forbidding personal attacks only applies to other users of PAFOA, not third parties. McKown is not currently a permitted user of PAFOA, since his account was banned. It looks like he came back one or more times as a sock puppet (last time I checked one such account appeared not to be banned yet), but since sock puppets are also prohibited he was never officially back.

[knight0334]

The rule forbidding personal attacks only applies to other users of PAFOA, not third parties. McKown is not currently a permitted user of PAFOA, since his account was banned. It looks like he came back one or more times as a sock puppet (last time I checked one such account appeared not to be banned yet), but since sock puppets are also prohibited he was never officially back.

Yep.. That pretty much sums it up.

Personal attacks against members is forbidden.

Personal attacks against non-members isn't. ...permanently banned person is no-longer a member.

[phillyd2]

Sorry kids but i forgot the

Remember the fuckstick all too well

[Big Kahuna 19547]

The only recourses are:

1. Open carry of a "firearm"(handgun, SBS, SBR) on foot outside of Philly and absent a state of emergency.
2. Open or concealed carry of a rifle or shotgun(except within Philly or during a state of emergency), and it cannot be loaded within a vehicle.


That is it.

#3. Go through MPOETC Academy and get hired as a part time or full time municipal police officer. State officers need to be 21.

http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/03...bchapBtoc.html