Open carry law

[ChamberedRound]

+1 That is my thought exactly. The only issue though with that line of thinking is, Philly. But Philly is a nation unto its own so....

Agreed. Again, I'm not a lawyer, but it would seem to me that the need to obtain an LTC to carry in any manner (as is the case in Philly) is unconstitutional, as there is no "unquestionable" method to carry at that point.

However, I think we all know what happened there. In the world of politics, Philly was the sacrificial lamb on which the UFA was passed. If the advocates of the UFA had fought the battle for Philly to behave the same way as the rest of the state (which would have been the RIGHT thing to do), they probably would have lost the larger war and failed to pass the UFA at all.

[LittleRedToyota]

Let me preface this, as always, by saying I'm not a lawyer, so take it FWIW.

LRT,

The state constitution also doesn't say that "the right to keep and bear arms in a concealed manner shall not be questioned".

That's not what Statkowski is getting at, IMHO. Because the state constitution and the UFA states that open carry is allowed without restriction or permit needed, the state is not limiting anyone's right to unquestionably carry a firearm. They do question individuals' rights to carry concealed, but carrying concealed is not constitutionally protected. I don't like it, but that's seems to be how they're getting away with it.

Now, if open carry were regulated, or were to be banned, then a case could likely be made, as there would be no method of "keeping and bearing arms" that would be "unquestioned". The state has to protect some method carrying firearms unquestioned in order for the state's constitution to be upheld, but not necessarily all.

End of my $0.02.

i don't see how you arrive at the conclusion that the state only has to protect some method of carrying firearms unquestioned in order to be in compliance with "shall not be questioned".

"shall not be questioned" means, well, "shall not be questioned"...period. i don't see how it matters that there is some other method of bearing arms that is (sort of) not questioned.

the constitution does not say "as long as the right to bear arms in some manner is not questioned, the right to bear arms in other manners can be questioned."

questioning a particular method of bearing arms (which is what requiring LTCFs for concealed carry is) is questioning the bearing of arms. this is specifically and clearly prohibited by the state constitution.

taken to an extreme, your argument could be used to outlaw all *practical* methods of bearing arms. for example, there could be a law stating that the only method of bearing arms that does not require a license (or is legal at all) is that anyone can bear arms as long as they bear unloaded arms with trigger locks installed.

there would then still be some method of bearing arms that is not questioned. thus, according to your logic, that would be constitutional.

on a side note, i realize that my positions regarding constitutional issues can be viewed as extreme. i did not always hold such "extreme" views.

however, having watched the legislative and executive branches of government ignore more and more of both the state and US constitutions, and trample on more and more of our rights over the last 20 years or so, and having watched the judicial branch fail time and time again to stop them, i believe this country needs to return to a very strict and literal interpretation (actually, non-interpretation...just reading what is there--period) of our constitutions. the dangers and harm from using a very strict and literal application are far outweighed by the damage done from allowing "interpretations".

(by the way, the way they "get away with it" is simply that the state and federal supreme courts have just plain failed to do their job of making the other two branches follow the constitutions.)

ETA: I'm not a lawyer either. however, one does not need to be a lawyer to read and comprehend the simple statement "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be questioned". both the state and US constitutions are not written in "legalese"...they are written in plain English. the legal system has perverted the implemented meaning of this plain and simple language, but that doesn't actually change what is written or what they actually say. so, the value of what you say regarding these documents is in no way dimished by the fact that you are not a lawyer--despite what *some* lawyers might tell you.

ETA2: in regard to the specific point:

the state is not limiting anyone's right to unquestionably carry a firearm

the state is limiting that right by limiting the manner in which the firearm is carried. the question the state is asking is "In what manner are you carrying the firearm?" thus, the state is questioning the bearing of arms.

[GunLawyer001]

This thread seems to be mostly on the right track, you guys are aware of the laws, the state Constitution, and the "realpolitiks" of what happens in courts.

There was a case around 100 years ago, where the PA Supreme Court held that the State could regulate the "manner" of carry as long as it didn't eliminate the "right" to carry. The court found that concealed firearms were a special case, more likely to be used in crimes, and somewhat nefarious, while openly carried firearms were less likely to be misused. That's why the UFA requires a license for concealed carry but not for open carry, because the Court said it was all they could do. I don't remember the case cite, I think it involved Harrisburg.

In practice, police will cite you for "disorderly conduct" if all you do is carry openly. Scaring the sheep is a no-no, after all. After a few grand in attorney fees to beat the charges, get your gun back, and have the issuing authority reinstate your revoked License to Carry Firearms, you will have "won". If you do anything more than simply carry openly, like have an argument or pull it out of the holster to show someone, it gets worse, with "reckless endangerment" or "terroristic threats", but not "brandishing" which I don't believe even appears in Title 18 at all.

I also had a case where the ADA made up a charge, of carrying openly while in possession of a license to carry concealed. He said that since the UFA states that the purpose of a license to carry firearms is to carry concealed, then anyone who carries openly is violating the UFA. Of course I got that "charge" dismissed, but the really sad part is that a lot of "experts" believe this, that open carry is illegal. I was told this during orientation at a gun club that I was joining (but I changed my mind), that EVEN WHILE TARGET SHOOTING it was illegal to wear a gun openly on your hip, because the license requires that the gun be concealed.

[whoshisface]

Several people, from what i see about 100, carry openly regularly in PA.

If you go to opencarry.org there is a long list of people who have carried and shown the local police departments and the city of philadelphia that open carry does not meat the requirements of disorderly conduct, or terrorist threats, to the point of a PA supreme court finding.

I quoted the surpreme court ruling earlier.

[LittleRedToyota]

In practice, police will cite you for "disorderly conduct" if all you do is carry openly. Scaring the sheep is a no-no, after all. After a few grand in attorney fees to beat the charges, get your gun back, and have the issuing authority reinstate your revoked License to Carry Firearms, you will have "won".

[rant on]

the state should automatically have to pay your attorney's fees in cases like this...they should also have to compensate you for your time and pay you "rent" for the length of time they kept your gun.

i know it doesn't work this way, but it should. then officials of the state would think twice about disobeying the law and violating people's rights.

[/rant off]

thanks for your input gunlawyer001.

[whoshisface]

Here are two cases that clearly states that it is legal (from opencarry.org)
Q. Is open carry legal in PA?

A. Yes. When walking about PA on foot, no LTCF is required to open carry unless you are in Philadelphia or an "emergency" has been declared. Here are 2 PA Supreme Court cases validating the legality of open carry in PA:

a. Commonwealth v. Hawkins, 692 A.2d 1068, n.4 (“In all parts of Pennsylvania, persons who are licensed may carry concealed firearms. 18 Pa.C.S. § 6108. Except in Philadelphia, firearms may be carried openly without a license. See Ortiz v. Commonwealth, 545 Pa. 279, 283, 681 A.2d 152, 155 (1996) ( only inPhiladelphia must a person obtain a license for carrying a firearm whether it is unconcealed or concealed; in other parts of the Commonwealth, unconcealed firearms do not require a license)”).



b. Ortiz v. Commonwealth, 545 Pa. 279; 681 A.2d 152 (1996)(agreeing with appellant’s citation of the fact that "...in Philadelphia County, the legislature requires that a person must be licensed to carry weapons openly and not concealed from sight, whereas in all other counties of Pennsylvania, weapons may be carried openly without a license[, but holding that appellant’s argument that this fact then exempts Philadelphia from state preemption statute] is plainly without merit” [emphasis added]”).

[ChamberedRound]

i don't see how you arrive at the conclusion that the state only has to protect some method of carrying firearms unquestioned in order to be in compliance with "shall not be questioned".

I arrive at that conclusion because that's the current reality. As I said before (and I'll put it in bold again) I don't like it, but that's the way it is. If our RKBA was unquestionably upheld in any and all cases, there wouldn't be a need for LTC permits.

taken to an extreme, your argument could be used to outlaw all *practical* methods of bearing arms. for example, there could be a law stating that the only method of bearing arms that does not require a license (or is legal at all) is that anyone can bear arms as long as they bear unloaded arms with trigger locks installed.

there would then still be some method of bearing arms that is not questioned. thus, according to your logic, that would be constitutional.

You're correct, my logic could lead to this. And I don't like it. But again, the fact of the matter is it's not just my logic, it's the current practice.

This thread seems to be mostly on the right track, you guys are aware of the laws, the state Constitution, and the "realpolitiks" of what happens in courts.

There was a case around 100 years ago, where the PA Supreme Court held that the State could regulate the "manner" of carry as long as it didn't eliminate the "right" to carry. The court found that concealed firearms were a special case, more likely to be used in crimes, and somewhat nefarious, while openly carried firearms were less likely to be misused. That's why the UFA requires a license for concealed carry but not for open carry, because the Court said it was all they could do. I don't remember the case cite, I think it involved Harrisburg.

It seems that there's case law to back up what I was saying. Amazing that I'm still defending my position when it's a position I don't like

[LittleRedToyota]

But again, the fact of the matter is it's not just my logic, it's the current practice.

ah...i see.

i agree, it is current practice. all i'm saying is that current practice conflicts with the state constitution.

[ChamberedRound]

ah...i see.

i agree, it is current practice. all i'm saying is that current practice conflicts with the state constitution.

And I agree with you that it seems to conflict with the state constitution. However, GunLawyer has referenced (although not officially cited) case law which seems to back up the state's position.

And again, I don't like it, but with State Supreme Court case law on the books on this issue, it's would be a tough fight if anyone attempted to take up the cause.

[LittleRedToyota]

And I agree with you that it seems to conflict with the state constitution. However, GunLawyer has referenced (although not officially cited) case law which seems to back up the state's position.

And again, I don't like it, but with State Supreme Court case law on the books on this issue, it's would be a tough fight if anyone attempted to take up the cause.

we are just having this discussion on two different levels. i'm not talking about the probability of anyone being successful in attempting to take up the cause.

all i'm saying is that the current laws conflict with what the PA constitution says. they do...it is clear. the laws don't just seem to conflict with the state constitution...they do conflict with the state constitution...no amount of case law can change that reality (though it can facilitate ignoring that reality).

the fact that there is state supreme court case law supporting the current law proves only one thing...that the state supreme court has failed to do its job of upholding the state constitution. they have betrayed us.

i agree that there is pretty much no way anyone would get them to change their stance...but their stance is still obviously and objectively in conflict with the state constitution.

of course, this is far from the only issue in which the state surpreme court...or the US supreme court, for that matter...has failed to uphold portions of the relevant constitution that are very clear and, frankly, not really subject to interpretation.

this is, however, one of the most obvious cases. there really is no way to rationally (i.e., wihtout arbitrarily redefining words or the english language) argue that any form of gun regulation does not violate the clause "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be questioned". they can, and do, make irrational arguments by trying to say a simple and crystal clear sentence somehow does not mean what it clearly and plainly says.

you can somewhat rationally argue different interpretations of the 2nd amendment to the US constitution, but the PA constitution clause really leaves no room for interpretation here. the state supreme court has betrayed us. there is nothing we can really do about it...but, still, they have betrayed us.

it is a very sad state of affairs.