Transporting firearm to range

[soberbyker]

Maybe it's confusion with the federal transport law thing; although it doesn't say that either. It apparently does allow for gas and food and other types of trip interruptions.

If it doesn't say it either why are you pointing to it? What makes you think that's the reason?

.

[media1988]

I would just keep the gun in the trunk and the ammo in a box in the cabin with you. Why make stops do it before you go to the range,Or just bypass this whole question and get your permit.

[The Lost]

needless to say there is room for interpretation and thus confusion... Extenuating circumstances aside if you are on the way to the range and find yourself in need of a restroom or forgot to eat or perhaps needing gas the law doesn't really protect you at all, the law simply protects the law by ensuring it can be interpreted however need as the situation permits. Sure if someone is abusing this the DA can interpret as rigid as he likes, and should you be an upstanding citizen who simply stopped for gas or a bathroom break than he might interpret it more loosely. I personally don't like to rely on the interpretations of a man, however flawed or honorable he may be when it comes to my personal rights. I wish this law was a bit clearer. Perhaps i should think on this more, i cant help but feel like i am over looking something.

[HiredGoon]

If it doesn't say it either why are you pointing to it? What makes you think that's the reason?

.

Just thinking maybe someone was getting the wording confused with this as it mentions making stops for gas, food, etc. Whatever

From the link I posted before.

Stops While Travelling

Courts have generally held that in order to be able to invoke this law as a defense the only stops allowed must be directly incidental to the trip. For example, in People v. Selyukov, 2008 NY Slip Op 28104, 2 (N.Y. J. Ct. 2008), a trial court held:

Fundamental to the defense is the firearm owner's actually engaging in travel, or acts incidental to travel, through the state of arrest, such as stopping for food or gasoline or picking up passengers or packages for the trip. Any pause in the journey must be directly incident to it.

The defense is generally lost if the firearm’s owner stops for any reasons not directly related to the immediate trip. (for example see State v Baker, 639 SW2d 617 [Mo App, SD 1982]) defense not available when stop was for unrelated stay with girlfriend.)

It is clear that stops for food and gasoline do not constitute a break in travel. But what about stops such as overnight stays or major diversions to collect passengers? Stops such as this are a grey area under this law and it is hard to judge the line when a stop is directly incident to the journey or falls outside of that category. Due to the lack of any settled law, it is best for a gun owner to be cautious when planning any intermediate stops.

[GunLawyer001]

. . . Not sure where the "don't stop for anything" people suggest is written, or if it's written or just an interpretation of going "to or from".
.

It's Pennsylvania case law. I remember reading of a case where the shooter stopped for dinner on the way home, and he was convicted of unlicensed transport, and the conviction was upheld on appeal. The premise being that it was a trip from the range to the restaurant, and not covered by the exception.

Note that a conviction is AT LEAST a 1st degree misdemeanor, and could be a felony, and either conviction is a Federal lifetime prohibitor to all gun ownership.

Get an LTCF. It's cheaper than talking to a defense lawyer for 8 minutes.

[ungawa]

I would just keep the gun in the trunk and the ammo in a box in the cabin with you. Why make stops do it before you go to the range,Or just bypass this whole question and get your permit.

I would keep both the ammo and the gun in the trunk. I would keep them in the same bag in the trunk. Keeping ammo in the cabin is just another thing to potentially catch a cop's attention during a stop.

[soberbyker]

It's Pennsylvania case law. I remember reading of a case where the shooter stopped for dinner on the way home, and he was convicted of unlicensed transport, and the conviction was upheld on appeal. The premise being that it was a trip from the range to the restaurant, and not covered by the exception.

Note that a conviction is AT LEAST a 1st degree misdemeanor, and could be a felony, and either conviction is a Federal lifetime prohibitor to all gun ownership.

Get an LTCF. It's cheaper than talking to a defense lawyer for 8 minutes.

OK, so it's the courts interpretation of the law but not what the law specifically says, gotcha, because reading the statute it didn't spell that out, that's where I was coming from.

I agree the LTCF is relatively painless to get and alleviates this problem.

.

[Exbiker]

It's Pennsylvania case law. I remember reading of a case where the shooter stopped for dinner on the way home, and he was convicted of unlicensed transport, and the conviction was upheld on appeal. The premise being that it was a trip from the range to the restaurant, and not covered by the exception.

Note that a conviction is AT LEAST a 1st degree misdemeanor, and could be a felony, and either conviction is a Federal lifetime prohibitor to all gun ownership.

Get an LTCF. It's cheaper than talking to a defense lawyer for 8 minutes.

Was the meal en-route or did they go the round about way to get the meal. Was this on a 25 minute range trip and unnecessary?

If I was going from Chester to Erie I would have to eat(low blood sugar) and refuel. How would I keep from being in violation?

[Exbiker]

If you stop at a wawa you are no longer considered going to the range you are considered going to the wawa and thus in violation. At least thats how the DA will interpret it. With the way it is written i'd say that interpretation is correct. However, I take issue with the way it is written.

I'm not sure on the exact interpretation but as far as some of the materials I've transported over the years from various types hazmat that required security and o/d loads they always allowed for stops that were needed as part of the trip. Fuel, food, lodging en-route.
If you were gassing up and getting food I would love to see a test case but if you were just buying a lottery ticket and a hustler mag it wouldn't be a necessary stop.
GL are their any cases to support either that you know of? What if your car breaks down and triple A tows you off route to their garage for repairs?

How much room is there between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law?

[tl_3237]

I’ve always looked at the issue of ‘stops’ as being allowed provided they are necessary parts of the trip. Since the legislature clearly provided for trips to/from the range they also tacitly allowed for those necessities that are an ‘inherent part’ of a trip. Such stops as fuel, bathroom, food, repairs, even lodging may be allowable providing the totality of circumstances support their inherence to the travel.

With that said, justification for those ‘stops’ require substantiation by the person claiming the range transport exemption and a judgment call by the trier-of-facts whether they concur with the ‘necessity’ of the ‘stops’.

So if you are on a relatively direct route to/from a range and you’re low on gas, get caught short by nature, need food, breakdown repairs, even lodging overnight then those ‘stops’ MAY well be allowed. Again its a judgment call but where the line is drawn is not defined. Some disqualifiers are obvious: going 50 miles off route for your favorite restaurant, stopping at a restaurant only a few miles from home, staying overnight at Uncle Sids when the range is in reasonable commuting distance from home, etc.

As Exbiker points out, a trip from Chester to Erie is considerable (400 miles) and it would be unreasonable to assume that it can be made without ‘stops’. Even longer trips of up to 650 miles are possible to conjure if one includes residents of contiguous states traveling to a match who have to rely of the exception while transporting in Pa. These longer trips may indeed necessitate overnights and, IMO, would still be in compliance with the 6106(b)(4) exception.

Guess the bottom line is to consider how confident you would be that you could convince a cop, DA, judge, and/or jury that the 'stop' you're about to make is intrinsic to your range trip and then proceed accordingly.