"...any person who carries a firearm in any vehicle..."

[rikilii]

What exactly does it mean to "carry a firearm in a vehicle?"

Suppose there are 2 people in a car in which there is a loaded firearm in a backpack in the trunk. Which of the 2 people is "carrying a firearm in a vehicle," if any?

What if I, an LTCF holder, am driving with my wife (not an LTCF holder) and that same backpack in the car, but I stop and go into store while my wife stays in the car with the guns (still on in a backpack on the backseat). Is my wife a felon as soon as I step out of the vehicle?

[knight0334]

Not in that situation because PA's law provides for the following:

18 Pa.C.S. § 6106: Firearms not to be carried without a license
(b) Exceptions.--The provisions of subsection (a) shall not apply to:
(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.

In other situations where no one is licensed it could vary. The officer would probably try to establish who the true owner is and charge that person. If neither is, its possible both might get charged, or the driver alone for having control and custody.

[Swarner793]

Even if the above did not apply, if she is not a prohibited person and she is committing no other criminal violation, it is a misdemeanor of the first degree. It is not good, but it is better than a Felony.

Be safe (and licensed).

Scott

[rikilii]

Not in that situation because PA's law provides for the following:



In other situations where no one is licensed it could vary. The officer would probably try to establish who the true owner is and charge that person. If neither is, its possible both might get charged, or the driver alone for having control and custody.

Good find, and I hate to pick nits, but technically in that hypothetical my wife would not be "operating" the vehicle and therefore the exception might not apply.

But then again, if the vehicle is sitting still who's to say she's "carrying a firearm in a vehicle" if it's not actually on her person?

[knight0334]

Good find, and I hate to pick nits, but technically in that hypothetical my wife would not be "operating" the vehicle and therefore the exception might not apply.

But then again, if the vehicle is sitting still who's to say she's "carrying a firearm in a vehicle" if it's not actually on her person?

I seriously doubt there would be even a problem with that. The spirit behind the law is to not incriminate an innocent person from their spouse or parent's leaving a firearm in the vehicle while the non-licensee is in control of the vehicle.

[rikilii]

I seriously doubt there would be even a problem with that. The spirit behind the law is to not incriminate an innocent person from their spouse or parent's leaving a firearm in the vehicle while the non-licensee is in control of the vehicle.

I know, I'm just playing Devil's Advocate (notice how the initials of Devil's Advocate are "D.A.").

[knight0334]

I know, I'm just playing Devil's Advocate (notice how the initials of Devil's Advocate are "D.A.").

LMAO! Nice!

[Statkowski]

What if I, an LTCF holder, am driving with my wife (not an LTCF holder) and that same backpack in the car, but I stop and go into store while my wife stays in the car with the guns (still on in a backpack on the backseat). Is my wife a felon as soon as I step out of the vehicle?

Nope, your wife is okay (although it's curious as to how the police would suddenly search your vehicle while parked at a store).

First, it's already covered by state law (mentioned above).

Second, it's already been covered by a State Supreme Court ruling (can't remember the cite) concerning constructive possession, which your wife didn't have.

[MDJschool]

Because the legislature chose to use the phrase 'person who carries ... in', the manner in which one may theoretically carry on foot should not at all be different from the manner in which one may carry in a vehicle. We may generally accept an 'on or about' manner of carry even in a vehicle, but because 'on or about' is a phrase already employed by the legislature in the statute, perhaps it is as narrow as 'on', for all intellectually honest practical purposes.

Should the legislature have used 'with' or 'by' instead, perhaps there would be some nexus between the conveyance and the person who carries. Since they did not, and the judiciary cannot improve the statute by convenient reading in of terms, then the judiciary is remiss if and when they may have found or suggested that 'in' "really meant" 'with' or 'by'. I've seen the SCOTUS case Muscarello thrown around here to support that notion, but in light of Heller's finding that bear = carry, I don't see how Muscarello would have a particularly strong link to 6106 since it wasn't discussing the UFA. Sometimes the PA courts do gloss over an issue and we accept that as their acceptance of a certain state of law (and I don't know if that is a type of precedent), such as the case that said a person who carries a firearm in any vehicle and then carries on or about their person, in the same incidental chain of events, may not be charged with two counts of 6106, where the courts did not address whether removing a firearm from a trunk of a vehicle was factually sufficient to support conviction. Since there is not so much that a court can address sua sponte, my belief is that either the issue wasn't raised or some stipulation was made to that point of law, and so it was not disturbed.

As for possession, joint (constructive) possession does exist (legally as a matter of proving culpability, although not necessarily to the facts of the hypothetical case laid out here.) Requirements of possession include intent to control, and the ability to control. Whether intent to control involves some overt conduct beyond mere knowledge and ability to control is a question that I would argue, obviously toward the requirement that the prosecution be held to the higher standard of proof, but that may not be what we see in the courts now.

[iceman9999]

Your very question concerned me a few weeks ago. I settled that problem by getting my wife LTCF. She got hers in 28 days but it took me the full 45 days.. Go figure.. lol.

But its best to get your wife LTCF because there are days when I go out and my wife will pick up the guns before I go out with the boys...

PS:
I do not take my glock with me when I go out with the guys.. NEVER!!. That would just create problems while drinking..