I've been asked to go on a radio show

[stephpd]

Originally Posted by Philadelphia

I might be getting in to this a little late but the only interpretation of the word "carry" that matters is the one made by the courts.

To the best of my recollection, carry means possession per the courts. That means, technically, you can't possess a gun in your car without the LTCF (as in no gun in the car or off to jail you go). There are statutory exceptions for when the gun is unloaded and separated from the ammo and you are headed to/from specified places, blah, blah. So, I believe Headcase is correct.

That's how I remember it.

Is that right? My head was hurting so much trying to understand.
I'm so stupid!
Help!

I know you were trying to explain but I got lost.

I hate all these laws!

But if the above statement is true then I understand.

[lildobe]

Just for anyone who missed it (And for our friend Pennsy) here is the audio from his segment of the Alex Jones show:

http://www.lildobe.net/gallery2/v/Gu...a/DicksonCity/

There is also video from various other sources related to the Dickson City Incident - I'm still uploading.

[Mike]

Originally Posted by headcase

That is going to be of great comfort to someone who, having read your interpretation and assuming it is a fact, winds up arrested and possibly prohibited from owning a firearm again. I guess after that, you can always shrug and say,"Well, that is what I thought it said, guess not.".

The word carry, as you can see below, is derived from the word transport.
The first definition is the term to transport. Preface your opinions with the statement that they are your opinions and not fact, and save someone from taking you at your word and getting in trouble. You are someone who gets in the spotlight and that will lend weight to your words here, be responsible.


Main Entry: 1car·ry
Pronunciation: \ˈka-rē, ˈker-ē\
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): car·ried; car·ry·ing
Etymology: Middle English carien, from Anglo-French carier to transport, from carre vehicle, from Latin carrus — more at car
Date: 14th century
transitive verb
1: to move while supporting : transport <her legs refused to carry her further — Ellen Glasgow>
2: to convey by direct communication <carry tales about a friend>
3chiefly dialect : conduct, escort
4: to influence by mental or emotional appeal : sway
5: to get possession or control of : capture <carried off the prize>
6: to transfer from one place (as a column) to another <carry a number in adding>
7: to contain and direct the course of <the drain carries sewage>
8 a: to wear or have on one's person b: to bear upon or within one <is carrying an unborn child>
9 a: to have or bear especially as a mark, attribute, or property <carry a scar> b: imply, involve <the crime carried a heavy penalty>
10: to hold or comport (as one's person) in a specified manner
11: to sustain the weight or burden of <pillars carry an arch> <is carrying a full course load>

1. Can you cite to any authority that shows that a mere arrest on a charge of "carrying in your vehicle without a license" prohibits a person from owning a gun again?

2. Can you cite to any authority that shows that a conviction on a charge of "carrying in your vehicle without a license" prohibits a person from owning a gun again?

3. Are you aware that the UFA uses "carry" and "transport" in different sections, and that these textual facts have legal significance when cosntruing sister sections of the same act especially under the rule of lenity.

4. I agree with you that postings on this board about rules of law are opinions - i think everybody knows that, and I guess you do as well as you do not use the introductory clause "it is my opinion" when you state that transport of handguns in vehicle trunks is illegal. That's why when proffering opinions on rule of law, one should cite to authority as best as possible - I cite to statute and the lack of case law saying otherwise. My point is that as a textual matter, the word "transport" is not in § 6106 - therfore nobody should ever say that § 6106 bans transport - in bans "carry" - and so if you want to take the position that possessing a gun in a trunk is a form of "carry" within the meaning of § 6106, that's fine - just do it up front and clearly, and acknowledge that the matter is not settled by any PA case law, and that we have no reported trial case convicting on this, and that other sections of the UFA speak to the word "transport" implying that under the UFA carry does not = transport.

[Severe]

I've just heard the interview and have to say it was handled in an outstanding manner, made me very proud to be a part of this community. I haven't been very active in the forums but these events have actually inspired me to do so and also to excercise my right to bare arms more often while educating others whom I love and care for to do the same. Definitely a turning point for me in the best way possible. Thank You for that and thanks to all who make this the great community it is!!

[headcase]

Originally Posted by Mike

1. Can you cite to any authority that shows that a mere arrest on a charge of "carrying in your vehicle without a license" prohibits a person from owning a gun again?

2. Can you cite to any authority that shows that a conviction on a charge of "carrying in your vehicle without a license" prohibits a person from owning a gun again?

3. Are you aware that the UFA uses "carry" and "transport" in different sections, and that these textual facts have legal significance when cosntruing sister sections of the same act especially under the rule of lenity.

4. I agree with you that postings on this board about rules of law are opinions - i think everybody knows that, and I guess you do as well as you do not use the introductory clause "it is my opinion" when you state that transport of handguns in vehicle trunks is illegal. That's why when proffering opinions on rule of law, one should cite to authority as best as possible - I cite to statute and the lack of case law saying otherwise. My point is that as a textual matter, the word "transport" is not in § 6106 - therfore nobody should ever say that § 6106 bans transport - in bans "carry" - and so if you want to take the position that possessing a gun in a trunk is a form of "carry" within the meaning of § 6106, that's fine - just do it up front and clearly, and acknowledge that the matter is not settled by any PA case law, and that we have no reported trial case convicting on this, and that other sections of the UFA speak to the word "transport" implying that under the UFA carry does not = transport.

You are arguing with the wrong person on your position, as I agree with it, as I have said already in this thread, and argued, more than once, before in others. My bone of contention with your posts is the fact that you are posting YOUR interpretation as a fact. It IS NOT A FACT. It is your interpretation. I do not post my interpretations as facts, and if you take a moment to actually read what I have posted, you may become enlightened to that fact. I have said, repeatedly, that your posting your opinions as facts, is going to do harm to someone who doesn't know better. The fact is that the statute is worded ambiguously, and a fairly intelligent person can twist the accepted meaning to show what you assert. But it has been my experience, that most people in law enforcement believe the statute means you can not carry a firearm in your vehicle without a LTCF, unless you are engaging in an exempted activity. You can argue until the cows come home, but that is the accepted meaning of the statute by the people who enforce the statute. I don't claim to know for sure what will happen if you get arrested for that charge, but I can tell you what will probably happen:

You get stopped-LEO finds a firearm in your vehicle- you don't have a LTCF- it is 2:00AM-you start to explain that the statute does not say what he believes it says-you get charged with an offense under 6106 and since your mouth overloaded your ass you also get charged under 908 because you possessed a firearm for purposes not lawful in the commonwealth-you are not famous or wealthy and get a public defender- you get convicted under 908 and released on parole- you are now a prohibited person.

You may get a good lawyer who argues the point well and maybe you get off Scott free. But you don't. You still have to pay the lawyer, and court costs. WHY? Why take that chance? I have not said once that carrying in a vehicle without a LTCF is illegal, what I have said is it is extremely irresponsible for you to say that it isn't.

You are wasting your time arguing with me, I am on the same page as to my belief of what the law says, it is your delivery that is lacking.

[Mike]

Originally Posted by headcase

I don't claim to know for sure what will happen if you get arrested for that charge, but I can tell you what will probably happen:

You get stopped-LEO finds a firearm in your vehicle- you don't have a LTCF- it is 2:00AM-you start to explain that the statute does not say what he believes it says-you get charged with an offense under 6106 and since your mouth overloaded your ass you also get charged under 908 because you possessed a firearm for purposes not lawful in the commonwealth-you are not famous or wealthy and get a public defender- you get convicted under 908 and released on parole- you are now a prohibited person.

1. Why does a 908 conviction make you a prohibited person? i am just wondering - it is a misdemeanor - maybe the sentence is over a year or somthing? School me.

2. But I don't see how anyone "carrying" a normal handgun in a vehicle can be convicted of a 908 charge - Section 908 is clear: ""Offensive weapons" Any bomb, grenade, machine gun, sawed-off shotgun with a barrel less than 18 inches, firearm specially made or specially adapted for concealment or silent discharge, any blackjack, sandbag, metal knuckles, dagger, knife, razor or cutting instrument, the blade of which is exposed in an automatic way by switch, push-button, spring mecha*nism, or otherwise, any stun gun, stun baton, taser or other electronic or electric weapon or other implement for the infliction of serious bodily injury which serves no common lawful purpose."

How can a normal handgun that you can open carry on foot in PA at age 18 without any license suddenly result in a 908 charge?

You bring up some good points though - traffic stops. First rule of traffic stops is just like the Army: "don't volunteer nothin'," especially any information of whether you are "carrying" a gun. The Second rule - never grant permission to search your vehicle. Closed and locked containers are not within the ambit of police "search for officer safety" power even under Terry where the officer has reasonable suspicion that both crime is afoot and you are both (1) armed and (2) presently dangerous. If you do not give permission for the search, no search can lawfully occur and therefore any evidence of unlawful "carry" in a closed locked container would be suppressed. Admitedly, things might get tricky if the car is impounded and an "inventory" is performed - a second locked container in the trunk would be best then, probably precluding admission of the evidence of the unlawful "carry." But the impoundment of the car would have to be prefaced upomn a lawful stop, and lawful arrest - so when you think about it, unless you are DUI or somthing, the idea of a handgun being lawfully seized in a locked container in a locked trunk is so low and under the gun owners' control that this may explain why we have no case deciding if "carry" included possession in a locked trunk.

[headcase]

Originally Posted by Mike

1. Why does a 908 conviction make you a prohibited person? i am just wondering - it is a misdemeanor - maybe the sentence is over a year or somthing? School me.

2. But I don't see how anyone "carrying" a normal handgun in a vehicle can be convicted of a 908 charge - Section 908 is clear: ""Offensive weapons" Any bomb, grenade, machine gun, sawed-off shotgun with a barrel less than 18 inches, firearm specially made or specially adapted for concealment or silent discharge, any blackjack, sandbag, metal knuckles, dagger, knife, razor or cutting instrument, the blade of which is exposed in an automatic way by switch, push-button, spring mecha*nism, or otherwise, any stun gun, stun baton, taser or other electronic or electric weapon or other implement for the infliction of serious bodily injury which serves no common lawful purpose."

How can a normal handgun that you can open carry on foot in PA at age 18 without any license suddenly result in a 908 charge?

You bring up some good points though - traffic stops. First rule of traffic stops is just like the Army: "don't volunteer nothin'," especially any information of whether you are "carrying" a gun. The Second rule - never grant permission to search your vehicle. Closed and locked containers are not within the ambit of police "search for officer safety" power even under Terry where the officer has reasonable suspicion that both crime is afoot and you are both (1) armed and (2) presently dangerous. If you do not give permission for the search, no search can lawfully occur and therefore any evidence of unlawful "carry" in a closed locked container would be suppressed. Admitedly, things might get tricky if the car is impounded and an "inventory" is performed - a second locked container in the trunk would be best then, probably precluding admission of the evidence of the unlawful "carry." But the impoundment of the car would have to be prefaced upomn a lawful stop, and lawful arrest - so when you think about it, unless you are DUI or somthing, the idea of a handgun being lawfully seized in a locked container in a locked trunk is so low and under the gun owners' control that this may explain why we have no case deciding if "carry" included possession in a locked trunk.

You can be charged with a 908 offense in the same way you can be charged with DC or TT for Open carrying- it is the easiest way to get you disqualified from owning a firearm an anti DA can use for that type of stop, in my opinion. While it obviously doesn't apply, if you don't know it, and your lawyer isn't up on it, then you can very possibly get convicted of it. As I am sure you are aware, there are more than a few members of LE who would love to see everyone be prohibited from carrying a firearm. Making the argument that a concealed, IE not visible, firearm had to be adapted to become concealed, might hold water if you are an unlucky person.

As to why a 908 offense makes you prohibited, it is the first enumerated offense listed in 6105b:

§ 6105. Persons not to possess, use, manufacture, control, sell or transfer firearms.
(a) Offense defined.--

A person who has been convicted of an offense enumerated in subsection (b), within or without this Commonwealth, regardless of the length of sentence or whose conduct meets the criteria in subsection (c) shall not possess, use, control, sell, transfer or manufacture or obtain a license to possess, use, control, sell, transfer or manufacture a firearm in this Commonwealth.
A person who is prohibited from possessing, using, controlling, selling, transferring or manufacturing a firearm under paragraph (1) or subsection (b) or (c) shall have a reasonable period of time, not to exceed 60 days from the date of the imposition of the disability under this subsection, in which to sell or transfer that person's firearms to another eligible person who is not a member of the prohibited person's household.

(a.1) Penalty.--Any person convicted of a felony enumerated under subsection (b) or a felony under the act of April 14, 1972 (P.L. 233, No. 64), known as The Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act, or any equivalent Federal statute or equivalent statute of any other state, who violates subsection (a) commits a felony of the second degree.

(b) Enumerated offenses.--The following offenses shall apply to subsection (a):

Section 908 (relating to prohibited offensive weapons).
*bold is mine and the rest has been omitted as it irrelevant to the discussion...


And again, the previous example of what may possibly happen was just an illustration of a possibility. Not everyone who reads this forum is as knowledgeable as some of us, on the law and the correct course of action if you get stopped by LE. Even those who know better have been brow beat into allowing a search, in an effort to be amicable to the friendly officer.

And just for the record, you are from Va, according to your profile, I am sure you could argue FOPA coverage if you try hard in a stop. But for Pa. residents, there is no back up if the transport v. carry argument fails...

[NineseveN]

Originally Posted by headcase

*bold is mine

With all due respect, you need to preface that statement with the words "IN MY OPINION". This forum is a wealth of facts and opinions on gun laws and rights in this Commonwealth, and a great deal of people use this site as a reference, more so now, with the publicity surrounding Rich's arrest and the whole Dickson City incident. With this publicity, a whole slew of new users, gun owners, and LTCF holders, have joined, looking for answers. I understand that you are who you are, but anyone who reads that post and takes it as fact, because of who you are, is likely to find themselves in hot water. I too would argue, and in fact have done so, that the statute, as worded, refers only to actually carrying the firearm on your person in a vehicle. But that is how I read it. That does not make it a fact, only my opinion, and one very likely to be ignored by police and the court. I would turn your own argument against you and say, you show me one case law reference where the statute was interpreted by a Pa. court to carry the meaning you ascribe to it. Then tell people it is legal to carry or transport a firearm in a vehicle without a LTCF.

A big +1 there. Mike, you're a good guy, you've been on the front lines fighting for some time now. You've made a little bit of a name for yourself, but let's not go overboard. If some green gun owner comes here, sees your words and then does what you advocate, they will absolutely be arrested, ask as many cops as you want as to what they'll do when they encounter that situation. Ask as many DA’s as you like. Ask as many lawyers versed in the UFA as you wish. Now mash that all together and see what you come up with.

Most gun owners aren't equipped, ready, willing or able to take on the kinds of fights that you and others like you have, so you should always preface your arguments with that in mind. Now, if you were an attorney able to practice the law in this commonwealth and you offered to defend anyone stuck with a charge based on following your advice or putting stock into your arguments here, that would be one thing. As it is now, it's another thing entirely, dangerous and irresponsible. If you make a name for yourself, you also end up with more responsibility because of it (which is why people are going to ride you hard on these very "iffy" arguments you have from here on out). Most of the time, the kinds of arguments you’re advancing would be met with serious scrutiny no matter who made them.

Just think about it.

[jstizy]

I must say you handled that as a professional!! Good job!

[Mike]

Originally Posted by headcase

You can be charged with a 908 offense in the same way you can be charged with DC or TT for Open carrying- it is the easiest way to get you disqualified from owning a firearm an anti DA can use for that type of stop, in my opinion. While it obviously doesn't apply, if you don't know it, and your lawyer isn't up on it, then you can very possibly get convicted of it. As I am sure you are aware, there are more than a few members of LE who would love to see everyone be prohibited from carrying a firearm. Making the argument that a concealed, IE not visible, firearm had to be adapted to become concealed, might hold water if you are an unlucky person.

As to why a 908 offense makes you prohibited, it is the first enumerated offense listed in 6105b:

§ 6105. Persons not to possess, use, manufacture, control, sell or transfer firearms.
(a) Offense defined.--

A person who has been convicted of an offense enumerated in subsection (b), within or without this Commonwealth, regardless of the length of sentence or whose conduct meets the criteria in subsection (c) shall not possess, use, control, sell, transfer or manufacture or obtain a license to possess, use, control, sell, transfer or manufacture a firearm in this Commonwealth.
A person who is prohibited from possessing, using, controlling, selling, transferring or manufacturing a firearm under paragraph (1) or subsection (b) or (c) shall have a reasonable period of time, not to exceed 60 days from the date of the imposition of the disability under this subsection, in which to sell or transfer that person's firearms to another eligible person who is not a member of the prohibited person's household.

(a.1) Penalty.--Any person convicted of a felony enumerated under subsection (b) or a felony under the act of April 14, 1972 (P.L. 233, No. 64), known as The Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act, or any equivalent Federal statute or equivalent statute of any other state, who violates subsection (a) commits a felony of the second degree.

(b) Enumerated offenses.--The following offenses shall apply to subsection (a):

Section 908 (relating to prohibited offensive weapons).
*bold is mine and the rest has been omitted as it irrelevant to the discussion...


And again, the previous example of what may possibly happen was just an illustration of a possibility. Not everyone who reads this forum is as knowledgeable as some of us, on the law and the correct course of action if you get stopped by LE. Even those who know better have been brow beat into allowing a search, in an effort to be amicable to the friendly officer.

And just for the record, you are from Va, according to your profile, I am sure you could argue FOPA coverage if you try hard in a stop. But for Pa. residents, there is no back up if the transport v. carry argument fails...

Thanks for the explanation on the Section 908 disability.

But the idea that a Section 908 charge is justifiable is starting to sound like the old warnings that OC = DC. That just does not hold any legal water, so folks who are worried about any possible police/prosecutorial abuse had best not ever carry a gun.

Now as for FOPA defense, that the last ditch offense after you have lost on the definition of "carry," and lost your Fourth Amebndment suppression motions. But I think it is still arguably viable, especially considering juriy nullification of any judge direction that FOPA is not applicable. The DC Court of Appeals has held that trial courts must advise juries of FOPA in DC gun cases involving autos. Bottom line though, FOPA's terxt is arguably applicable, as it speaks to transporting firearms from place to place, not between states:

"§ 926A. Interstate transportation of firearms
How Current is This? Notwithstanding any other provision of any law or any rule or regulation of a State or any political subdivision thereof, any person who is not otherwise prohibited by this chapter from transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm shall be entitled to transport a firearm for any lawful purpose from any place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm to any other place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm if, during such transportation the firearm is unloaded, and neither the firearm nor any ammunition being transported is readily accessible or is directly accessible from the passenger compartment of such transporting vehicle: Provided, That in the case of a vehicle without a compartment separate from the driver’s compartment the firearm or ammunition shall be contained in a locked container other than the glove compartment or console."

This is not to say it's a sure fire defense - but look at the obstacle course any prosecutor has to run - (1) was the stop valid?, (2) was their consent to the search?, (3) does "carry" equal possession in a locked trunk?, (4) Are you going to look a judge in the eye and say that FOPA's text does not mean what it says?

If the answer to any of the above questions is No, the gun owner wins.