SCOTUS Ruled that 'Locked in the Glovebox/Trunk' = Carry

**LittleRedToyota** · March 1st, 2010, 06:49 PM

Originally Posted by ehidle

I guess my point then ends up being that, if the justice system wanted to rake you over the coals for walking past a kilo of coke, they could do it easily and with impunity.

no doubt. the legal system (it isn't really a justice system as innocent people who get arrested/have their LTCFs improperly revoked/etc. rarely get any actual justice...and state agents who abuse their authority are very much protected by the system) can rake you over the coals for walking out your front door.

**TaePo** · March 2nd, 2010, 01:08 AM

Originally Posted by LittleRedToyota

no doubt. the legal system (it isn't really a justice system as innocent people who get arrested/have their LTCFs improperly revoked/etc. rarely get any actual justice...and state agents who abuse their authority are very much protected by the system) can rake you over the coals for walking out your front door.

Like on another thread, headcase and I were discussing arrest for determining outcome in court. In this case, constructive possession gives them probable cause to arrest and it is up to the court to, hopefully, make the correct decision. (I am not necessarily saying it is correct as we should err on the side of liberty when there is doubt. But it seems that more often than not, an arrest will be made. Usually charges are followed through by the D.A.. Sometimes, however, an innocent person gets the short end of the stick, though. But again, that would mainly be a failure of the court system/judicial system, juries, and public defenders or ineffectual counsel.)

**LittleRedToyota** · March 2nd, 2010, 01:19 AM

Originally Posted by TaePo

Sometimes, however, an innocent person gets the short end of the stick, though. But again, that would mainly be a failure of the court system/judicial system, juries, and public defenders or ineffectual counsel.)

it is certainly a failure of one or more of those.

however, there is also a problem with the system itself.

by design, those who are innocent are not made whole. they are not reimbursed for their attorney's fees. they are not compensated for their time, lost wages, etc.

people will make mistakes, but the system could be tweaked to better minimize the harm suffered by innocent people as a result of those mistakes. it was the state's mistake...the state should pay for it.

**Corn Flake** · March 2nd, 2010, 01:30 AM

You guys realize that this decision is from June 8, 1998. Nothing is going to change NOW because of some judicial decision that happened almost 12 years ago. I wouldn't lose my sleep over this.

**MDJschool** · March 2nd, 2010, 02:23 AM

Originally Posted by LittleRedToyota

those two definitions are not at all at odds with each other. they are essentially the exact same thing..."to hide something".

1 : to prevent disclosure or recognition of <conceal the truth>
2 : to place out of sight <concealed himself behind the door>

Definition 2 will get you convicted for 6106 for open carrying and sitting in a booth at a restaurant. Hell, if someone is standing on your week side and your firearm is on the opposite hip, you have placed that firearm out of sight, haven't you?

There's obviously a latent intent insisted with definition 1, but the argument seems to be as long as the courts don't twist the word from the common meaning, it would be okay. That seems to me to only mean open carry could effectively be outlawed under current PA law if a court simply chose definition 2 over 1.

**TaePo** · March 2nd, 2010, 11:23 AM

Originally Posted by LittleRedToyota

it is certainly a failure of one or more of those.

however, there is also a problem with the system itself.

by design, those who are innocent are not made whole. they are not reimbursed for their attorney's fees. they are not compensated for their time, lost wages, etc.

people will make mistakes, but the system could be tweaked to better minimize the harm suffered by innocent people as a result of those mistakes. it was the state's mistake...the state should pay for it.

Agreed. (Ten char.)

**LittleRedToyota** · March 2nd, 2010, 11:34 AM

Originally Posted by MDJschool

Definition 2 will get you convicted for 6106 for open carrying and sitting in a booth at a restaurant. Hell, if someone is standing on your week side and your firearm is on the opposite hip, you have placed that firearm out of sight, haven't you?

no it won't. the definition does not mean out of sight of any person positioned anywhere. it means "out of sight" completely.

otherwise, every single thing on the planet would be concealed all the time. i mean, you cannot see me at the moment, but i am not concealed.

if something is placed behind a door and there is someone behind that door to see it, it is not concealed...as it was not actually placed out of sight (since someone can see it...which, by definition, negates it being out of sight).