Anyone know if this was changed in 1995?

[username]

Was this section changed repealed or amended in 1995?

§ 6108. Carrying firearms on public streets or public property in Philadelphia.

No person shall carry a firearm, rifle or shotgun at any time upon the public streets or upon any public property in a city of the first class unless:
1.such person is licensed to carry a firearm; or
2.such person is exempt from licensing under section 6106(b) of this title (relating to firearms not to be carried without a license).

[knight0334]

If I remember correctly, I think it was added to appease Philly when the state enacted preemption as part of the UFA.

It is still in effect today.

[BenGlock]

Was this section changed repealed or amended in 1995?

§ 6108. Carrying firearms on public streets or public property in Philadelphia.

No person shall carry a firearm, rifle or shotgun at any time upon the public streets or upon any public property in a city of the first class unless:
1.such person is licensed to carry a firearm; or
2.such person is exempt from licensing under section 6106(b) of this title (relating to firearms not to be carried without a license).

No, it has been in effect since June 6, 1973 with no changes.

[anonymouse]

No, it has been in effect since June 6, 1973 with no changes.

That might have been a reaction to this:

http://forum.pafoa.org/1603958-post-23.html

1970-01-28 Court Allows Gun Carrying


See Commonwealth v. Ray, 218 Pa. Superior Ct. 72 - Pa: Superior Court 1970

These are appeals by the Commonwealth from the order of the Court of Common Pleas, Trial Division, Criminal Section, of Philadelphia, dismissing prosecutions under Section 10-814 and Section 10-818 of The Philadelphia Code and indictments for carrying a concealed deadly weapon and for unlawfully carrying a firearm without a license under the Uniform Firearms Act of 1939, June 24, P.L. 872, § 628, 18 P.S. 4628 and its amendments. The Court directed verdicts of not guilty of the indictable offenses of carrying a concealed deadly weapon and, holding Section 10-814 and Section 10-818 of The Philadelphia Code unconstitutional, dismissed the summary charges under the Code and held that Sections e.1 and e.2 of Section 628 of the Uniform Firearms Act, 1968, July 30, P.L., § 1, 18 P.S. 4628 as unconstitutional and dismissed the indictable offenses without decision on the merits.

Appellee, Frederick Ray, was tried after waiver of trial by jury before Judge Thomas M. REED on indictments for (1) carrying concealed deadly weapon and (2) unlawfully carrying a firearm without a license. He was also charged with the summary violation of the licensing provision of Section 10-814 of The Philadelphia Code.

Appellee, Hosie Jeffcoat, was charged with the same indictable offenses as well as a summary violation of Section 10-818 of The Philadelphia Code which prohibits 75*75 the carrying of firearms in public in Philadelphia.

<snip>

The lower court also held the 1968 Amendment, supra, to the Uniform Firearms Act unconstitutional as being class legislation, and as contravening Article I, § 1, and Article I, § 21 of the Pennsylvania Constitution thus exceeding the police power of the General Assembly.

That this is not class legislation is clear since the act applies to all persons in the Commonwealth and not just those in a city of the first class. The limitation is as to an area constituting a very small portion of the Commonwealth. First class cities have been the special subject of attention by the General Assembly in almost every field of legislation since their creation without objections. Also the General Assembly has given attention to the needs of limited areas as to the control of firearms for nearly 100 years, i.e., the City of Harrisburg, by Act of 1873, April 12, P.L. 735.

The right of citizens of Pennsylvania to bear arms in defense of themselves, their property and the State 79*79 predates any Constitution of the Commonwealth, and has been embodied in every Constitution we have had and is in Article I, § 1, and Article I, § 21 of the present Constitution of Pennsylvania as follows:

"ARTICLE I, SECTION 1. All men are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent and indefeasible rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing and protecting property and reputation, and of pursuing their own happiness.

"ARTICLE I, SECTION 21. The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."

That the right to bear arms, guaranteed by the Constitution, is not an unlimited right is almost universally accepted. A reasonable regulation in a gun control law is a valid exercise of the police power of the Commonwealth prescribing for the good order and protection of its citizens. Commonwealth v. Butler, 189 Pa. Superior Ct. 399, 150 A. 2d 172 (1959); Wright v. Commonwealth, 77 Pa. 470 (1875).

The lower court based its conclusion that the 1968 Amendments, supra, were unconstitutional because the second portion thereof did not contain an exception as to the right of a citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or his property.

This right is a constitutional one and cannot be diminished by any act of the Legislature. If it were included it would be mere surplusage, for it is presumed that all acts of the Legislature are subject to the clear mandate of the Constitution and included by reference thereto.

We are bound to afford this legislation the presumption of Constitutionality. Act of May 28, 1937, P.L. 1019, Article IV, § 52, 46 P.S. § 552.

80*80 In view of the prevailing circumstances in the Commonwealth, we hold the 1968 Amendments to the Uniform Firearms Act reasonable and constitutional.

The judgments of the court below are affirmed in part and reversed in part and the records are remanded to the court below for disposition on the merits in line with this opinion.

Lexis's notes on the Superior Court opinion:

OUTCOME: The trial court was affirmed in part and reversed in part by the court. It held that amendments to the firearms act were constitutional because they enjoyed a presumption that the legislature would not act in contravention of the constitutional right to bear arms. The city firearm ordinances were unconstitutional because they exceeded the authority of a home rule city to legislate beyond its borders and in conflict with state law.

It must be constitutional because the legislature would not enact an unconstitutional statute? What the kind of logic is that?


See also Commonwealth v. Ray, 448 Pa. 307 - Pa: Supreme Court 1972

I also found this:

THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS IN THE FIRST STATE BILLS OF RIGHTS: PENNSYLVANIA, NORTH CAROLINA, VERMONT, AND MASSACHUSETTS
Stephen P. Halbrook


<snip>

I. JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS

When Pennsylvania adopted the first right-to-bear-arms guarantee in the newly independent states in 1776, it did not do so in a vacuum. That it was an established right under common law or natural law seems to be suggested by Commonwealth v. Ray,22 which declared void a Philadelphia ordinance prohibiting the unlicensed carrying of a firearm on public property. The Pennsylvania Superior Court invalidated the city ordinance on the following grounds:

The right of citizens of Pennsylvania to bear arms in defense of themselves; their property and the State predates any Constitution of the Commonwealth, and has been embodied in every Constitution we have had and is in Article I, § 1, and Article I, § 21 of the present Constitution of Pennsylvania as follows:

"Article I, Section 1. All men are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent and indefeasible rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing and protecting property and reputation, and of pursuing their own happiness.

Article I, Section 21. The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."

The city ordinance at issue in Ray prohibited the unlicensed carrying of firearms in public places during an emergency unless "actively engaged in" defense of life or property. 24 The lower court had declared the requirement of a license to carry firearms void because it "did not contain as an exception to the right of a citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or his property." 25 The Superior Court, reversing in part, found that "[the] right [to bear arms] is a constitutional one and cannot be diminished by any act of the Legislature. If it was included it would be mere surplusage, for it is presumed that all acts of the Legislature are subject to the clear mandate of the Constitution ...." 26

The same Philadelphia ordinance regulated the purchase of firearms, and this was also attacked in federal court on second amendment grounds. 27 The district court dismissed, 28 and the Third Circuit affirmed.29 Appellant argued "that by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution he is entitled to bear arms." 30 The court, however, said that "[a]ppellant is completely wrong about that .... It must be remembered that the (pg.260) right to keep and bear arms is not a right given by the United States Constitution." 31 While construing the federal guarantee narrowly, the court concluded that the ordinance was void under state law in view of the decision in Commonwealth v. Ray. 32

22 Commonwealth v. Ray, 218 Pa. Super. 72, 272 A.2d 275 (1970), vacated on other grounds 448 Pa. 307, 292 A.2d 410 (1972).

23 Id. at ___, 272 A.2d at 278-79 (the trial court judge based his decision on the federal constitution, ruling that the city ordinance was in violation of the second amendment). After nearly a century from the adoption of Pennsylvania's right-to-bear-arms provision, the courts were split on whether some local prohibitions on carrying concealed firearms were constitutional. In the constitutional convention of 1873, it was unsuccessfully proposed that citizens have a right to bear arms "openly." A proponent noted that "when that question was brought before one of the courts of Philadelphia, one of the judges declared that a person ... who had a pistol concealed on his person had a constitutional right to carry that pistol concealed ...." DEBATES OF THE CONVENTION TO AMEND THE CONSTITUTION OF PENNSYLVANIA at 258 (Harrisburg 1873). An opponent who "believe[d] in the right of self-defense of the weak against the strong" could not understand "why the Constitution should prohibit a man from carrying weapons to defend himself unless he carries them openly, why you should require him to sling a revolver over his shoulder." Id. at 259. Although the above proposed amendment was defeated 54-23 (id. at 261), two years later the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, in a very brief opinion, upheld a prohibition on carrying concealed weapons. Wright v. Commonwealth, 77 Pa. 470 (1875).

24 Ray, 218 Pa. Super. at ___, 272 A 2d at 278.
25 Id. at ___, 272 A.2d at 279.
26 Id.
27 Eckert v. City of Philadelphia, 477 F.2d 610 (3d Cir. 1973), cert. denied 414 U.S. 839 (1973).
28 Eckert v. City of Philadelphia, 329 F. Supp. 845 (E.D. Pa. 1973).
29 Eckert, 477 F.2d 610.
30 Id.
31 Id. The district court made a similar statement, but added in more detail that "the only function of the Second Amendment is to prevent the federal government, and the federal government only, from infringing that right .... [T]he plaintiff has no absolute right to be free of state or municipal regulation concerning the keeping and bearing of arms ...." Eckert, 329 F. Supp. at 845-46.

32 Eckert, 329 F. Supp. at 846.

Here is Eckert v. City of Philadelphia, Pa., 477 F. 2d 610 - Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit 1973

Appellant's theory in the district court which he now repeats is that by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution he is entitled to bear arms. Appellant is completely wrong about that.

And Eckert v. City of Philadelphia, 329 F. Supp. 845 - Dist. Court, ED Pennsylvania 1971

We have decided to grant the defendant's motion to dismiss. The crux of the plaintiff's complaint is that the City's regulation of the purchase and transfer of firearms infringes his right to keep and bear arms, a right which, the plaintiff asserts, is absolute and guaranteed him under the Second Amendment of the Federal Constitution. In this interpretation of the Second Amendment the plaintiff is gravely mistaken. The right to keep and bear arms is not a right conferred on the people by the Federal Constitution, but rather, the only function of the Second Amendment is to prevent the federal government, and the federal government only, from infringing that right. (citations omitted) We can find no authority departing from this interpretation of the Second Amendment.

Since it is clear that the plaintiff has no absolute right to be free of state or municipal regulation concerning the keeping and bearing of arms, he has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

[BenGlock]

I believe that if challenged, Section 6108 would be struck down as violative of the Second Amendment and Article I, Section 21 of the PA Constitution based on Heller and its progeny. There may also be an equal protection argument now that the right to bear arms has been held, in McDonald, to be a fundamental right. As I have mentioned in other threads, the PA Supreme Court has interpreted presumptively barred the carrying of firearms in Philadelphia by interpreting Section 6108 to mean that licensure is merely an affirmative defense, thereby giving police reasonable suspicion to stop and detain, and perhaps even probable cause to arrest, anyone seen carrying a firearm in Philadelphia. This could end up with the courts in two ways: defense of a criminal proceeding where someone is charged with carrying a firearm in Philadelphia despite having a license to carry, or through a Section 1983 action alleging that constitutional rights were violated by a stop and/or arrest.

[username]

Was this section changed repealed or amended in 1995?

§ 6108. Carrying firearms on public streets or public property in Philadelphia.

Wow bizarre. I was only asking this specifically because on a prior thread when I asked if people felt things were better or worst in Philadelphia, I was told that because my reference point was 1991 that the law had changed and that my point was not understood.

Apparently the law has not changed and my point is that things have not improved in philadelphia. Thanks guys and gals.

[knight0334]

Was this section changed repealed or amended in 1995?

§ 6108. Carrying firearms on public streets or public property in Philadelphia.

Wow bizarre. I was only asking this specifically because on a prior thread when I asked if people felt things were better or worst in Philadelphia, I was told that because my reference point was 1991 that the law had changed and that my point was not understood.

Apparently the law has not changed and my point is that things have not improved in philadelphia. Thanks guys and gals.

Philly is Pennsylvania's New York City. 6108 is blatantly unconstitutional. It doesn't allow a means to carry without a license(rights don't require permits, and cannot require a fee to practice - Murdock v PA 1943) and violate the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution.

Of all the current PA laws - that one is the most offensive in nature. Followed closely by the prohibition on transporting in a vehicle without a license.

[username]

I understand what you are saying. Most of the "legal" gun owners and carriers are so fixated on the laws that at some point when the laws are going to be used to disarm everyone it will be the pivotal point for us all. I was charged with enforcing it and did so with belief, training and indoctrination to do so. I think the majority of people here do believe that some people should not have access to firearms. It needs to be carefully evaluated because removing someones rights is very serious. I no longer vote but it is interesting also that as a convicted Felon that right is stripped away from you also. All this rights stuff means zero today because our Government is Judge, Jury and Executioner. No rights, no trial, no evidence. Think things are better?

[BenP]

I understand what you are saying. Most of the "legal" gun owners and carriers are so fixated on the laws that at some point when the laws are going to be used to disarm everyone it will be the pivotal point for us all. I was charged with enforcing it and did so with belief, training and indoctrination to do so. I think the majority of people here do believe that some people should not have access to firearms. It needs to be carefully evaluated because removing someones rights is very serious. I no longer vote but it is interesting also that as a convicted Felon that right is stripped away from you also. All this rights stuff means zero today because our Government is Judge, Jury and Executioner. No rights, no trial, no evidence. Think things are better?

Felons do get there right to vote back after there sentence including parole time is served. The 2 rights that are important for gun ownership that don't get restored is the right to sit on a jury and the right to hold elected office. This is important because even if a person goes to court to have their gun rights restored under the UFA, they are still prohibited under Federal law without those rights being restored.