Do court facilities have to check your OC'd firearm? Possible 18Pa.C.S.§913 anomaly

[gnbrotz]

So, a rifle is a firearm per this statute. So, if I have proof of exemption or whatnot, must they provide storage for it?

You don't even need proof of exemption (IMO). While it is defined as a firearm for the purposes of 913, it is not defined as a firearm under 6106 (licensing), so you need not provide a license or prove exemption for long arms.

[GL23]

My head is spinning after reading this thread. I'll stick to the easy stuff; fighting preemption violations in my area.

[mjf]

You don't even need proof of exemption (IMO). While it is defined as a firearm for the purposes of 913, it is not defined as a firearm under 6106 (licensing), so you need not provide a license or prove exemption for long arms.

Has anyone actually tried doing this before?

[gnbrotz]

Has anyone actually tried doing this before?

Not that I'm aware of. Yet.

[Mtn Jack]

Code zero bingo priceless, i had that happen once. Mtn Jack

[headcase]

You don't even need proof of exemption (IMO). While it is defined as a firearm for the purposes of 913, it is not defined as a firearm under 6106 (licensing), so you need not provide a license or prove exemption for long arms.

I don't think this flies, Greg. The way 913 is worded, the storage is specifically for firearms, as defined by 913-not 6106, that are carried under a license provided for in 6109 or that are specifically carried using an exception under 6106(b). Since rifles fall under the definition provided as the reference in 913,(hence they can not be classified under "dangerous weapons", so we won't discuss that) yet they do not meet the definition used in 6106, they can not be specifically carried under an exception in 6106(b) nor do they qualify for coverage under 6109. Since this part of the statute directs that storage be required for specific things, and it is not making those specific things illegal, you can not use the logic that applies to something that is not illegal being legal. It defines a set of items, then it decrees a specific subset of those item that storage must be provided for. If your item does not fall into that subset, they are not required to provide storage for it.

913 provides no exception, and there is no provision, for firearms that do not meet the standard to qualify for required storage. The statute is not vague. It is poorly worded for our purposes, but it is very specific.

[MDJschool]

913 provides no exception, and there is no provision, for firearms that do not meet the standard to qualify for required storage. The statute is not vague. It is poorly worded for our purposes, but it is very specific.

There maybe a possible argument (but only upon certain presumptions) for not-6102-firearms being excluded from checking, but I don't think the one provided is it.

What are lockers or similar facilities for?
- for the temporary checking of firearms by persons carrying firearms under section 6106(b) or 6109
- for the checking of other dangerous weapons that are not otherwise prohibited by law

Saying that 913(f)-"firearms" but not "firearms by persons carrying firearms under section 6106(b) or 6109" are excluded from the category "other dangerous weapons" or "other dangerous weapons that are not otherwise prohibited by law" is reading words out of the statute to improve or diminish it. The courts are prohibited from this, and would have to explain why they were allowed to consider only 913(f)-"firearms" alone as the category.

The above assumes that we can at least consider the possibility that 'other dangerous weapons' can include firearms. I don't think we can conclude that it doesn't without an analysis, and so I consider exclusionary wording as the first order to determine what 'other dangerous weapons' may be implicitly excluded from including by statutory construction.

The applicable portion of the definition of 'other dangerous weapons' is "other implement for the infliction of serious bodily injury which serves no common lawful purpose". Be reminded that while the object may serve no common lawful purpose, 913(e) requires the other dangerous weapon not be otherwise prohibited by law. Let's compare this to 908, found in this chapter.

ETA: My review of 908 jurisprudence did not go as planned. I expected to find 'common lawful purpose' to be circumstantial and in fact I've read cases to that point; however, the modern line of cases finds common lawful purpose to be without circumstance. In that case, the courts have already generally found handguns to not be prohibited offensive weapons (and therefore lacking no common lawful purpose.) and have made mentions about rifles in some opinions.

I'm not sure of the order in which the rules of construction now apply. By virtue of having to do analysis on what 'common lawful purpose was', did that invoke statutory ambiguity? If not, then it appears that in fact long arms cannot be checked If there is ambiguity, does the similar phrase in the chapter apply first, or the preface of the bill the originally passed the legislation? If the former applies, we would never reach that the legislature supposedly cares about our right to bear arms, as stated in the bill. However, if we can use that preface, then it is hard to believe long arms could be excluded, given the strong wording of intent.

So, solely on the wording of 913, perhaps long arms are not included in the requirement that they be checked. Beside 2A and Sec21 concerns, I don't see how the exclusion of long arms would not be an unconstitutional condition to either simply accessing the court or to attending proceedings related to a fair/impartial/speedy/public trial. It is either a right to access the courts via Pa Const Art.1, Sec.11 , or a benefit to enter the premises at one's will when not required, and it is of course a right to fair/impartial/speedy/public trial, and to not check long arms is to say one must trade their right to keep and bear arms if they want to access their right to trial or benefit of access to the courthouse at their leisure.

I'm not sure if 913 could receive an overbreadth challenge until people start stepping up to say that they would carry long arms but the statute makes them fearful of engaging in that constitutionally protected activity, or more people public complain about being denied checkins for long arms; however, if the legislature writes a shitty statute in plain wording, the courts might take it down: Commonwealth v. Omar (2009), http://www.aopc.org/OpPosting/Suprem...A&B-2008mo.pdf (or if that fails to load: http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache%...09&hl=en&gl=us )

[truecrimson]

...................I'm not sure if 913 could receive an overbreadth challenge until people start stepping up to say that they would carry long arms but the statute makes them fearful of engaging in that constitutionally protected activity, or more people public complain about being denied checkins for long arms; however, if the legislature writes a shitty statute in plain wording, the courts might take it down: Commonwealth v. Omar (2009), http://www.aopc.org/OpPosting/Suprem...A&B-2008mo.pdf (or if that fails to load: http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache%...09&hl=en&gl=us )

Say when

[MDJschool]

Say when

All that I suppose needs to happen is people bitching on a blog or forum every time they have the substantial fear or actual denial, so that there is a bit pot of evidence that can be asserted. If I were aware of some amount of this already, I'd say that the overbreadth challenge would be ready to be made.

[anonymouse]

(e) Facilities for checking firearms or other dangerous weapons.--Each county shall make available at or within the building containing a court facility by July 1, 2002, lockers or similar facilities at no charge or cost for the temporary checking of firearms by persons carrying firearms under section 6106(b) or 6109 or for the checking of other dangerous weapons that are not otherwise prohibited by law. Any individual checking a firearm, dangerous weapon or an item deemed to be a dangerous weapon at a court facility must be issued a receipt. Notice of the location of the facility shall be posted as required under subsection (d).

Sorry to bump this, but I was wondering...

The red seems to me to indicate that other items may be "deemed to be a dangerous weapon" but don't meet the definition in the statute. Could a long gun be "deemed to be a dangerous weapon", therefore requiring storage?

Definition in (f):

"Dangerous weapon." A bomb, grenade, blackjack, sandbag, metal knuckles, dagger, knife (the blade of which is exposed in an automatic way by switch, push-button, spring mechanism or otherwise) or other implement for the infliction of serious bodily injury which serves no common lawful purpose.

I am not a lawyer (obviously).