Paging Charles F. Eckert; time to appeal your 1971 decision

[MDJschool]

Attorneys and Law Firms
Charles F. Eckert, pro se.
Fred Speaker, Atty. Gen., Larry Elliot Jones, Asst. Atty. Gen., Philadelphia, Pa., for respondent.
Opinion
OPINION AND ORDER
HAROLD K. WOOD, District Judge.
Defendant has moved to dismiss plaintiff's cause of action brought pursuant to the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 et seq. Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the Commonwealth and its agents from acting pursuant to the provisions of the Pennsylvania Uniform Firearms Act, 18 P.S. § 4628, which he alleges are violative of the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution.
Plaintiff challenges the following provisions of the Act: that portion of § 4628(e) which provides, with certain exceptions, that “No person shall carry a firearm in any vehicle or concealed on or about his person, except in his place of abode or fixed place of business, without a license therefor;” those portions of § 4628(e) and (f) which provide that before obtaining a license to carry a concealed firearm or registering a firearm, one must pay a fifty cent fee; and those portions of § 4628(e) and (f) which provide that registration of a firearm and a license to carry firearms may be revoked by the issuer at any time upon written notice to the holder. Plaintiff contends that each of the above provisions infringes on his right to bear arms under the Second Amendment.
We conclude that plaintiff's claims are without merit and the Commonwealth's motion to dismiss will be granted. The Supreme Court of the United States has held that the Second Amendment was not adopted to guarantee the right of the individual to bear arms, but rather to protect the states “in the maintenance of their militia organizations against possible encroachments by the federal power.” United States v. Tot, 131 F.2d 261 (3rd Cir. 1942), reversed on other grounds, 319 U.S. 463, 63 S.Ct. 1241, 87 L.Ed. 1519 (1943). Therefore, unless possession of arms bears a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, there is no Second Amendment right to such possession. United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 59 S.Ct. 816, 83 L.Ed. 1206 (1939).
Eckert v. State of Pa., 331 F.Supp. 1361, 1362 (E.D.Pa. 1971)

[MDJschool]

Eckert v. State of Pa., 331 F.Supp. 1361, 1362 (E.D.Pa. 1971)

I didn't realize it before but the Third Circuit affirmed the district court's finding without a published opinion. Eckert v. State of Pennsylvania, 474 F.2d 1339 (1973). Guess he just needs a reargument.