CLAIM: Open carry not permitted if possessing LTCF

[PAMedic=F|A=]

Please bear in mind that I have sincere respect for the posters in this forum and would not want even a total stranger to get ripped off or be given bad info from some clown LGS. Normally I would name names (and I have with other issues in other forums), but it would be irresponsible for me to do so and possibly very unfair to this person and business. Here's why:

1. Nobody intentionally lied to me and I certainly did not get ripped off on my purchase. I got a better deal than expected.
2. I would need to confirm with 100% certainty that the erroneous claim was not said in jest before outing the person/LGS and damaging the business. Even if I did that, I could still be hit with a LIBEL LAWSUIT, and I have no witnesses.
3. The inaccurate info did no real harm, did not cause a dangerous situation, and will be corrected shortly.
4. Owner is an articulate 2nd Amendment advocate who who was 100% spot on with his other statements.
5. LGS was very friendly, very helpful, and owned by a veteran.
6. And if you re-read GunLawyer001's post in this discussion, you will be reminded that there are people in positions of authority with the government who have gotten this particular issue wrong. If the LGS owner learned his erroneous information from one of these "authorities," how can you so easily blame the LGS owner?

If he ripped me off or told me something like "you really shouldn't open carry around here because it upsets too many soccer moms," you'd know the name already. I realize that there are a variety of reasons one may wish to know names, but prudence (legal) and my conscience will not allow me to ruin someone's livelihood over something that he may have been told by an uninformed LEO/Sheriff/DA/DJ....or even learned from his USCCA trainer.

Except that he is in a position as a store owner to be a person of authority. In this case you looked for the correct answer, but you can not say Harm was not done. Maybe someone else well not OC because of his statements. Their liberty has been restricted. Maybe another person chose not to get their LTCF and does not realize that you need a LTCF to have a firearm in your car & goes to jail.

Some times the best action is to admit your ignorance & keep your mouth shut.

[RayDiffraction]

Except that he is in a position as a store owner to be a person of authority. In this case you looked for the correct answer, but you can not say Harm was not done. Maybe someone else well not OC because of his statements. Their liberty has been restricted. Maybe another person chose not to get their LTCF and does not realize that you need a LTCF to have a firearm in your car & goes to jail.

Yes, I had thought of your position but that's still the question of balancing a "maybe this" and a "maybe that" against a fairly certain threat against his livelihood for something that may not be his fault. The community of gun owners and particularly 2nd Amandment advocates has a lot of power when it comes to a gun store in a community, and it should be used judiciously and rightly apportioned against the real enemies of our freedoms--not a fellow 2nd Amendment advocate who happened to make one mistake which may not even be his fault. Being too reactionary in a forum such as this easily can lead to a gun store's closing and a real person with a real family having to endure hardship because of us.

Some times the best action is to admit your ignorance & keep your mouth shut.

I wholeheartedly agree with your statement; however, if he were told misinformation by a trusted authority, he would not be cognizant of any ignorance and would feel no need to keep his mouth shut. Moreover, I have little doubt he was attempting to convey helpful information to a customer (me) whom he knew had never held a LTCF. Once again, weighed against his singular erroneous statement, the consequences for outing someone who was very likely attempting to do the right thing are too severe, which makes the outing itself reckless and not the least bit charitable.

[GunLawyer001]

Yes, I had thought of your position but that's still the question of balancing a "maybe this" and a "maybe that" against a fairly certain threat against his livelihood for something that may not be his fault. The community of gun owners and particularly 2nd Amandment advocates has a lot of power when it comes to a gun store in a community, and it should be used judiciously and rightly apportioned against the real enemies of our freedoms--not a fellow 2nd Amendment advocate who happened to make one mistake which may not even be his fault. Being too reactionary in a forum such as this easily can lead to a gun store's closing and a real person with a real family having to endure hardship because of us.



I wholeheartedly agree with your statement; however, if he were told misinformation by a trusted authority, he would not be cognizant of any ignorance and would feel no need to keep his mouth shut. Moreover, I have little doubt he was attempting to convey helpful information to a customer (me) whom he knew had never held a LTCF. Once again, weighed against his singular erroneous statement, the consequences for outing someone who was very likely attempting to do the right thing are too severe, which makes the outing itself reckless and not the least bit charitable.

I agree with you.

The public discourse has lately been filled with reactionary punishment of all who dare to speak anything other than what the herd believes. It started on the Left, I think, although history is likely filled with companies being boycotted and people being shunned for not being Christian enough or for being too friendly with the Picts or for sharing food with the nice Neanderthal family in the next valley.

This wasn't some arms trafficker who had a "Hillary for President" poster stuck in his window, or who went on TV in support of a semi-auto arms ban.

This bit of bad info has been promulgated by people who ought to know better, like certain DA's and sheriffs, and the entire Philly PD. Trying to punish a particular store owner because he passed along incorrect info seems harsh; would we all be in favor of a lifetime ban for any PAFOA member who ever posted incorrect info here, or just disagreed with the majority of the cool kids? Should we purge our ranks of anyone who used the term "Class III weapons" or suggested that a 9mm is fine for self-defense?

Because losing PAFOA access probably won't get in the way of you sending your kids to college, while a boycott of a store could easily do so.

If we did ban every PAFOA member who ever posted bad info, there'd be a lot fewer PAFOA members. I think we all prefer correction over punishment and banishment and destruction.

[Mitch10mm]

Gun law is serious stuff

[WCMG]

Excellent answer. It's not common knowledge but if there isn't a law against it, then it's legal. A good example is the use of suppressors for hunting, until recently it wasn't addressed, therefor it was legal. FYI - It's still legal.

Laws prohibit behavior, they do not allow for it. As such, 18 PA Sect. 6106 prohibits carry in certain instances without a LTCF. Since open carry is not listed as prohibited it is authorized. Sect. 6108 prohibits ANY carry in Philadelphia without a LTCF, so even open carry requires a LTCF (it is NOT a "concealed carry permit", although it does allow for comcealed carry among other things). There is no affirmative law granting carry. It is either prohibited or it is lawful.

Ask your gunshop instructor if holding a LTCF requires you to conceal, why is it that Philadelphia requires it for open carry as well. See what he says.

[Sgt.K]

Should we purge our ranks of anyone who used the term "Class III weapons" or suggested that a 9mm is fine for self-defense?

Well, yeah!

[Carson]

What I have always found amusing as an attorney and as a former police officer is that many people who are unqualified to give advice are the one who most attempt to push their advice. Such as a gun store owner, police officers, etc. First of all in most states it is a felony to engage in the practice of law without a law license. Secondly, it can be dangerous for the person who attempts to rely on such advice.

A gun store owner telling you that you lose a right because you obtain a LTCF should be suspect. I remember as a police officer in the 80s many police stated to persons in PA open carrying that they would be charged with Disorderly Conduct for causing annoyance or alarm in public.

If you have a legal question you can search the statutes, case law, consult an attorney or the Office of Attorney General. Relying on lay opinions of law can be to your detriment.

Is giving friendly information, however right or wrong, actually practicing law ?

And what does that say for people who want to represent themselves at trial ?
(Besides having a fool for a client)

[theduke]

What I have always found amusing as an attorney and as a former police officer is that many people who are unqualified to give advice are the one who most attempt to push their advice.

My first thought is the cop in the other thread about the woman recording and the cop tells her "I know the law better than you."

[alpacaheat]

Why would obtaining a license restrict your options?


This would be like upon getting a driver's license, you're now banned from riding a bicycle.


A lot of gun shop owners are morons. I've run into a few that do not even know the laws.

[knight0334]

There are better ways to correct erroneous activities than to harass and harm a small business. Especially one that is effectively on "our side". Giving out incorrect info is a lot different than Dick's stopping the sale of "Assault Weapons", or non-firearm related businesses catering to anti-gun folks.

There is also a difference between unintentional incorrect info and intentional correct info..

At most, someone should just drop off a stack of flyers for that dealer to give out.