Judge - PA's Ban On Carrying Firearms In Vehicles Without License Unconstitutional

[Mosinshooter762]

We're looking for a Guinea pig on that, do you feel lucky?

Good point! I just asked this as I imagine this is an issue that is going to come up a lot.

Delaware and other states have had or (as is the case for Delaware at least) still have a similar statutory scheme. I'm most familiar with Delaware's scheme. Other states have been less restrictive on interpretations of this. However, Delaware has taken a broader construction of what a deadly weapon being concealed 'about' a person means. Delaware law and its case law doesn't prohibit deadly weapons in vehicles, per se. Rather, Delaware prohibits the concealed carry of deadly weapons upon or about ones person without a license. The Delaware courts leave it to the fact finder to determine whether a deadly weapon is in fact upon or about ones person.

The Delaware courts have equated a deadly weapon concealed upon or about the person to, in essence, mean some form of immediate accessibility to a concealed weapon in a vehicle. They base this on the meaning of the language concerning concealed 'about' the person. As such, whether a pistol, that was put in a glove compartment by a driver, is upon or about the person of the driver would be a question of fact for a judge or jury in Delaware.

[tl_3237]

Is off the person possession or carry in a vehicle of a (statutory firearm) not in plain view but also not on or about ones person without a LTCF or exception now protected (outside of Philadelphia) by this case?

In essence, is having a pistol in a glove compartment or other place in a vehicle not in plain view but that is not on or about ones person without a LTCF or exception (outside of Philadelphia) now protected?

I would argue that the glovebox is 'about' ones person in that it is readily accessible to the occupant(s). You are correct that, absent a statutory or case law definition, the trier-of-fact makes the determination. In jury trials the jury instructions from the judge may sway their determination.

[Mosinshooter762]

I would argue that the glovebox is 'about' ones person in that it is readily accessible to the occupant(s). You are correct that, absent a statutory or case law definition, the trier-of-fact makes the determination. In jury trials the jury instructions from the judge may sway their determination.

Good point! Though, my point about it being a fact determination as applied to a firearm being concealed somewhere in a vehicle is based on Delaware case law. In Pennsylvania, having a LTCF is the safest way to go right now if you do not want to not risk getting charged and going to criminal court. However, from a gun rights perspective I believe we should push this issue further in appropriate cases.

Now I pointed out the case law in Delaware being more restrictive (among most states) as it has been articulated by the Delaware Supreme Court in Dubin v. State, 397 A. 2d 132 (1979) and its line of cases. Conversely, the Louisiana Supreme Court has long held the opposite. In State v. Brunson, 111 So. 321 (1927) in the context of a vehicle carry, the Louisiana Supreme Court analyzed how other courts handled this issued and concluded in the following excerpt (see: https://casetext.com/case/state-v-brunson-6):

The difference of opinion in the cases cited is in the meaning of the term "on or about the person." In Tennessee, North Carolina, Missouri and Texas, the words "on" and "about," in the expression "on or about the person," are held to be not convertible terms, but to have quite different meanings; the word "on" meaning attached to, and the word "about" meaning in close proximity to, or in easy reach of. In Alabama, Virginia, Kentucky, Georgia and South Carolina, the expression "on or about the person" is held to have only its commonplace meaning, in which the words "on" and "about" are interchangeable or synonymous terms. Our opinion is that the latter idea is the one which the Legislature, most likely, had in mind. When it is said in ordinary parlance that a person had a document or a sum of money or a weapon on or about his person, we never think of analyzing the expression, or wonder whether the document, money or weapon was really on the person or only in close proximity to or in easy reach of the person. A safe rule of interpretation of statutes is to give to commonplace terms their most usual and ordinary meaning; and the safest of all rules, in the construing of criminal statutes of doubtful meaning, is to resolve the ambiguity into the milder construction, in favor of the party accused.

The court found that a pistol in the driver's door pocket, within easy reach of the driver, was not 'on or about the person'.

In my view, from a 2nd Amendment standpoint we should argue (assuming the DC vs. Heller, McDonald vs Chicago, NYSRPA vs Bruen, etc. line of cases are not construed to protect full blown (permitless) constitutional carry) in the very least that the constitution protects carrying a firearm (that is not otherwise concealed on the person) in a vehicle based on text, history, and tradition.

[Here4now]

See tl_3237's post. As usual he says it much better than I could!
Apparently you are in fact now good to go.

And

That’s good to know. Last year when I rented a BNB in upstate PA, rather than go completely un-armed, I took a rifle (unloaded in the truck, of course). I’d much rather take a handgun.

[tl_3237]

That*s good to know. Last year when I rented a BNB in upstate PA, rather than go completely un-armed, I took a rifle (unloaded in the truck, of course). I*d much rather take a handgun.

Wouldn't be surprised if its not over yet and an appeal filed with 3rd circuit. Whether a stay of the court's finding is sought/granted is yet to be seen.

[buckengr]

Don't worry, the completely non-political PASC will shortly overrule him.

This is a case in Federal District Court -- PASC will have no jurisdiction over this case.

[Here4now]

That’s good to know. Last year when I rented a BNB in upstate PA, rather than go completely un-armed, I took a rifle (unloaded in the truck, of course). I’d much rather take a handgun.

Wouldn't be surprised if its not over yet and an appeal filed with 3rd circuit. Whether a stay of the court's finding is sought/granted is yet to be seen.

I’ll be going to the same Airbnb in October. I’ll need to keep watching this thread closely for updates on appeals/rulings.

[Here4now]

That’s good to know. Last year when I rented a BNB in upstate PA, rather than go completely un-armed, I took a rifle (unloaded in the truck, of course). I’d much rather take a handgun.

I’ll be going to the same Airbnb in October. I’ll need to keep watching this thread closely for updates on appeals/rulings.

I haven’t seen any updates on this. This past weekend, I once again took a rifle rather than a handgun. Even though I assume it's still legal pending appeals, I’m too old for any hassles.

[tl_3237]

I haven’t seen any updates on this. This past weekend, I once again took a rifle rather than a handgun. Even though I assume it's still legal pending appeals, I’m too old for any hassles.

Posted on September 16, 2024 by Joshua Prince, Esq.

As the binding precedent does not support a stay, it is likely that we will seek review by the Third Circuit in the near future. However, as of now, the Suarez decision is stayed and Section 6106 can be enforced, as written.

[PocketProtector]

My pea brain says infringements one and all. Don*t know how courts conclude otherwise.