Carrying during state of emergency

[BenP]

http://www.thecrimsonpirate.com/rtkb...E_2009-201.pdf

According to page 45 of the above MPOETC legal update, a person can't open carry a firearm during a state of emergency unless they meet both of the exemptions under 6107. Since 6107 doesn't specify a manner of carry, does that mean we can't carry firearms because we don't meet the first exemption? Does that also mean all LEOs in the Commanwealth also have to disarm since they don't meet the first exemption either?

[Curmudgeon]

http://www.thecrimsonpirate.com/rtkb...E_2009-201.pdf

According to page 45 of the above MPOETC legal update, a person can't open carry a firearm during a state of emergency unless they meet both of the exemptions under 6107. Since 6107 doesn't specify a manner of carry, does that mean we can't carry firearms because we don't meet the first exemption? Does that also mean all LEOs in the Commanwealth also have to disarm since they don't meet the first exemption either?

In a word, no. The MPOETC reference, handy though it may be, is not the law, and occasionally does an "iffy" job of interpreting it.

The Law...

§ 6107. Prohibited conduct during emergency. No person shall carry a firearm, rifle or shotgun upon the public streets or upon any public property during an emergency proclaimed by a State or municipal governmental executive unless that person is:

1. Actively engaged in a defense of that person's life or property from peril or threat.
2. Licensed to carry firearms under section 6109 (relating to licenses) or is exempt from licensing under section 6106(b) (relating to firearms not to be carried without a license).

See the difference?

Being licensed under 6109 we may carry open or concealed because 6107 makes no new restrictions.

There is no "and" between #1. and #2., neither is there a comma. I therefore read it as "#1 OR #2.

Edited to add, cite: http://paopencarry.org/uniform-firearms-act#6107

And... I am not a lawyer.

.

[Captain Tuttle]

Like it's going to matter when Deputy Fife rolls up on you during a declared emergency and you are armed.

"STOP RESISTING!"

"Deploying TASER"

And

"BZZZ, BZZZ, BZZZ"

is all you are going to hear.

If you're lucky that is and not shot dead right there.

The behavior of local and out of state lawmen in New Orleans is everything you need to know about what really happens during a state of emergency.

[BenP]

In a word, no. The MPOETC reference, handy though it may be, is not the law, and occasionally does an "iffy" job of interpreting it.

The Law...

See the difference?

Being licensed under 6109 we may carry open or concealed because 6107 makes no new restrictions.

There is no "and" between #1. and #2., neither is there a comma. I therefore read it as "#1 OR #2.

Edited to add, cite: http://paopencarry.org/uniform-firearms-act#6107

And... I am not a lawyer.

.

I agree with you but we know that the courts don't always interpret laws the way they are written. If the courts go with MPOETC's interpretation of the law, the results could be dire. Not only would we be disarmed during a state of emergency but so would LEOs since they also wouldn't meet the first exemption. Of course the courts could come up with some creative way of showing that 6107 doesn't apply to LEOs. After all they found a way of showing a registry really isn't a registry.

[mpan72]

Like it's going to matter when Deputy Fife rolls up on you during a declared emergency and you are armed.

"STOP RESISTING!"

"Deploying TASER"

And

"BZZZ, BZZZ, BZZZ"

is all you are going to hear.

If you're lucky that is and not shot dead right there.

The behavior of local and out of state lawmen in New Orleans is everything you need to know about what really happens during a state of emergency.

You mean like today? Or tommorow? We are in a state of emergency right now.

[Curmudgeon]

I agree with you but we know that the courts don't always interpret laws the way they are written. If the courts go with MPOETC's interpretation of the law, the results could be dire. Not only would we be disarmed during a state of emergency but so would LEOs since they also wouldn't meet the first exemption. Of course the courts could come up with some creative way of showing that 6107 doesn't apply to LEOs. After all they found a way of showing a registry really isn't a registry.

Well... let me say this about that.

Speaking strictly for myself, if I found no solace in the written law I'd probably be doing a lot of things differently. Where do you draw the line on that? A LEO and a judge could very well ignore case law and both Supreme Courts. It's happened.

We should probably first decide which we wish to discuss. What the law says, or, how it could possibly be misinterpreted by a broken criminal justice system.

I'm open for either, just let me know ahead of time.
.

I open carried in the last SoE and I am OCing for this one.

[mpan72]

I agree with you but we know that the courts don't always interpret laws the way they are written. If the courts go with MPOETC's interpretation of the law, the results could be dire. Not only would we be disarmed during a state of emergency but so would LEOs since they also wouldn't meet the first exemption. Of course the courts could come up with some creative way of showing that 6107 doesn't apply to LEOs. After all they found a way of showing a registry really isn't a registry.

The courts go with their own interpretation of the law. That is how it works.

[Steve in PA]

. Of course the courts could come up with some creative way of showing that 6107 doesn't apply to LEOs. .

The courts don't have to come up with anything. The law specifically states that 6107 does not apply to anyone exempt from needing a LTCF in order to carry a firearm.

Also, in the MPOETC literature you mentioned, it says "or" not "and" in regards to the exceptions under 6107. Exception 1 or 2 , not 1 and 2. Your interpretation of the law meaning both need to apply is wrong.

[twency]

The courts don't have to come up with anything. The law specifically states that 6107 does not apply to anyone exempt from needing a LTCF in order to carry a firearm.

Also, in the MPOETC literature you mentioned, it says "or" not "and" in regards to the exceptions under 6107. Exception 1 or 2 , not 1 and 2. Your interpretation of the law meaning both need to apply is wrong.

The linked MPOETC update says

The exceptions to open carry are as follows:
There is a restriction on open carry during a declared state of emergency. In this
situation the person must be actively engaging in a defense of that person’s life or
property from peril or threat and possesses a valid and lawfully issued license to
carry a firearm or is exempt from licensing. (§6107).

(My emphasis added.)

The MPOETC's interpretation appears to be that both (1) actively defending AND (2) possessing a license or being exempt from licensing are required to open carry during an emergency. This is what BenP is questioning, and understandably so.

Edit: the section I quoted is on the page marked 45, which is page 51 of the PDF.

[Bmarshall91]

I am constantly actively engaging in protection of my life every day i step out of my door. Nothing is guaranteed, NOONE can guarantee me that someone isn't going to jump out of the woods by my house and shoot me in the head.... so I am protecting my life by carrying my sidearm.


p.s. i also have a license...