Pa. Supreme Court given history-making opportunity to approve Constitutional Carry

[MDJschool]

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has given a history-making opportunity to approve Constitutional Carry for Pennsylvania. The question presented: "Is there a right to bear arms without license?"

Did Hobson McKown put it all on the line to present the court a single question from which to receive a single answer? One shot, one kill?

In a mysterious change of strategy under what may also be strangely dubious circumstances, it seems that the defendant, Hobson McKown, with his attorney, Jason Dunkle of JD Law, P.C., in the case Commonwealth v. McKown, docketed under 906 MAL 2013, has presented only a single question (under Pa.R.A.P., Rule 1115(a)(3)) for which the court has been given reasons to take the appeal (under Pa.R.A.P., Rules 1114, 1115(a)(5)), those reasons being the question of 'constitutionality of a statute of the Commonwealth', that 'the question presented is one of first impression', and that 'the holding of the intermediate appellate court conflicts with a holding of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court'.

More specifically, McKown asks whether 18 Pa.C.S. § 6106 fails to hold inviolate the rights declared under the Pennsylvania Constitution, Declaration of Rights, Article I, sections 1, 21, and 25. He asks, can mere concealed carry of a firearm without prior restraint ever be a crime?

GunLawyer001 has reminded us, "Any experienced lawyer will tell you that it's a bad idea to base an appeal on half a dozen grounds. It looks desperate, judges don't like it, it stinks of desperation. Your appeal shouldn't be a Hail Mary pass that throws everything that might possibly work at the court; it should rest on a solid error below, and should force the appellate court to deal with your strongest argument."

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has never entertained and ruled upon this question in a reported opinion. The nearest opinion might be said to be Wright v. Commonwealth, 77 Pa. 470 (1875), in which the Court provided in a per curiam opinion, providing no analysis, rationale, or authority for its holding, that "the offence of unlawfully and maliciously carrying upon the person of the defendant, a concealed deadly weapon, to wit, a pistol, with an intent, unlawfully and maliciously, to do bodily harm to another," being "[s]uch an unlawful act" and having such "malicious intent as this" has "has no protection under the 21st section of the Bill of Rights, saving the right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the state." 18 Pa.C.S. § 6106 criminalizes the carry of concealed firearms without regard to any 'unlawful act', 'malicious intent', or 'bodily harm to another'.

This is the showdown you've been waiting for all of your life. Whether you lived under the 'may-issue' licensing scheme or had only been born since the so-called 'shall-issue' system, none of us have been alive since 1850, prior to which Constitutional Carry actually existed in Pennsylvania. You didn't care if the moment carried in which the legislature passed a bill of repeal, the judiciary declared an act void, or the executive just gave up enforcing it. You just wanted to be alive when history was made, to be part of it, and a brighter future for you, your children, your family, loved ones, and friends.

All there is to do is for the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to take the question. No one will hold a gun to their heads to take the case like police officers might hold guns to our heads for carrying firearms.

It's hard to say if you have a voice at this time to make sure this Court addresses Constitutional Carry. Pa.R.A.P., Rule 531(a), regarding participation by amicus brief, says anyone interested in the question can file an amicus curiae brief without leave of court but for Petitions for Allowance of Appeal, which is the current stage of Hobson McKown's case with the Pa. Supreme Court. This does not mean that you are precluded for requesting leave of court to file an amicus brief to get them to accept the question -- Rule 531 does not seem to address that. If you're having a Supreme Court Justice of Pennsylvania over for tea, perhaps you might casually mention, "Did you hear the news? Some guy is trying to get concealed carry law struck down. I hear that if he doesn't win, it doesn't matter, someone else will keep trying..."

In 2013, Pennsylvania's intermediate appellate courts drew a line in the sand against its people: the Superior Court ruled against McKown, declaring 18 Pa.C.S. § 6106 constitutional; in another case, Caba v. Weakneckt, the Commonwealth Court ruled against the plaintiff, declaring 18 Pa.C.S. § 6109 constitutional. Our rights have been clearly and virtually voided altogether.

Whether Hobson McKown is ignored (being denied allowance of appeal) or goes on to win (by reversal) or lose (by affirmance) the case, he leaves in his wake a chess piece to every Pennsylvanian, to do with what the recipient pleases, at the cost or profit to all of us. It's your move.

[GunLawyer001]

I never said that a lawyer should abandon the valid point that would fix the damage he already did, and go solely with an argument that has no chance of succeeding, thereby (a) allowing his earlier disaster to continue harming "any person" who relied on the statute to carry on an out-of-state license, and (b) creating a completely new anti-gun-rights precedent where none existed before.

What we have is a single case being used to wound us twice: Once by declaring that we are not "persons" who benefit from the exemption for "any person", and now a second injury, providing the court a clean opportunity to give its stamp of approval to regulating concealed and vehicular carry.

I have no idea where the current crop of delusional activists came from, who apparently have a compelling need to leave footprints somewhere, and don't seem to care whether those footprints are on the path to freedom or on the faces of the innocent.

Being noticed is not the same as being worthwhile. And contrary to what Hollywood says, there IS such a thing as "bad publicity", and if someone gets a lot of attention for hurting gun rights in spite of being repeatedly warned by us that he's going to cause a train wreck, don't expect us to think anything except that he's a self-absorbed douchebag.

Activist judges need 2 things to implement their Progressive agendas: Weak cases, and idiot self-styled activists who are willing to take those cases up on appeal with weak arguments. Lately, there's no shortage of such activists.

I can't say that Bloomberg and Brady and the other anti-gunners are actually paying the "pro-2nd Amendment activists" who helped to kill out-of-state-license carry, and nullify state preemption, and destroy the ability of people with old involuntary commitments to ever own guns again, and eliminate the CLEO bypass for trusts and other entities. But they should. They earned it.

[BimmerJon]

In early on a great thread

Space for rent... PM for advertising quotes in this space

[Wasz]

In to see how this breaks down.

[RaggedEdge]

Ok so I'm a fairly intelligent person with excellent reading comprehension.
Perhaps a little back story on this case would help?

Sounds like a man was charged with illegal possession/ carry of firearms as he had no PA liscense to carry but did have an unrecoginised states liscense? Is that the gist? The docket link didn't really tell me much.

[Gunsnwater]

This is the show down I've been waiting for all my life??????? WTF? You high? This is gonna be uglier then a 300lb cock fight in a broken down synagogue. If I had me some sneakers I'd run away.

[MikeB0]

I would prefer a legislative fix vs. putting this in the hands of the current PA Supreme Court. This may not go well for us. Seen too many judges seem to find "extra" language in pretty plainly written laws.

Prediction. License required ruled constitutional on LEO/Public Safety grounds.

[ViperGTS19801]

Isn't McKown the guy who skirted the system by applying for an out of state permit when his PA LTCF was revoked?

[nater99]

Isn't McKown the guy who skirted the system by applying for an out of state permit when his PA LTCF was revoked?

I believe it is. I dont know much about the guy but everything I've found online leads me to believe he's not the guy we want as the face of gun rights in PA

[fuzzywuzzy]

Hobson McKown is a pothead, a self proclaimed "Sovereign Citizen", and is the kind of person you can only talk to for 3 minutes before you decide he has some screws loose. Unfortunately that is how he comes across in court.

Another "hero" would be more appropriate for these proceedings. A side-effect is the courts look at and listen to this guy and think he is representative of all gun owners. People just like you on this site get painted with his brush. It does not help in future cases brought before them.