Talk:Uniform Firearms Act

message: I started this article because it's a relatively large gun law that is pertinent to criminal justice issues in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.  Any help would be appreciated!  
RegBarc 01:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: • "Where the Commonwealth cannot prove that a person carried a concealed weapon, it may nonetheless prove that the firearm was carried without a license as that offense does not require intent. [12: Com. v. Pauze, 70 D&C 2d 368 (CCP 1975).]
• First note that D&C reports are citations for Pennsylvania Courts of Common Pleas, which are not binding authority on state law.  While they may be persuasive authority and are worth mentioning, they should not be expressed in the same certainty as other statements on Pennsylvania are, as garnered from the appellate courts (Superior, Commonwealth, and Supreme).  For example, prefacing statements of apparent fact, garnered only from CCP cases, with phrases like "some trial courts have held" is a good way to distinguish.
• Next note that the statement for which Com. v. Pauze is cited is not at all an accurate reflection of the contents of Pauze.  The contents of Pauze may be found at http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7724028284616492654&q=%22Commonwealth+v.+Pauze%22&hl=en&as_sdt=2,39 and should be read to revise.  Pauze discusses two PA statutes, 18 Pa.C.S. 6106, and 18 Pa.C.S. 908.  18 Pa.C.S. 6106 penalizes the mode of a carry of firearm (concealed or in a vehicle) without a license, while 18 Pa.C.S. 908, speaking nothing of licenses or mode of carry, penalizes the character of the weapon carried.  Pauze does NOT say that in lieu of proving concealment under 18 Pa.C.S. 6106 that the Commonwealth may prove the firearm was carried (in any fashion?) without a license.  The argument by the Defendant in Pauze, the background of such an argument the Court failed to explain away, is that PA jurisprudence around 80-125 years ago provided that concealed carry prohibitions must include an intent element, or they would otherwise be unconstitutional.  The courts inexplicably whisked the intent requirement away throughout the past 70 years, but without a corresponding constitutional amendment.  "When an ordinance on the same subject was before us some time ago, we held it to be invalid, for the reason that it defined no offence against the law of the state. It simply prohibited the carrying of concealed deadly weapons, without reference to the intent unlawfully and maliciously to do injury to any other person." City of Scranton v. Adams, 20 Pa. D. 91, 92 (Pa.Com.Pl. 1910).  Cf. Wright v. Commonwealth, 77 Pa. 470, 471-472 (1875) ("This indictment is for the offence of unlawfully and maliciously carrying upon the person of the defendant, a concealed deadly weapon, to wit, a pistol, with an intent, unlawfully and maliciously, to do bodily harm to another, contrary to the Act of 5th May 1864, section 1, 1 Brightly 323, pl. 40. Such an unlawful act and malicious intent as this has no protection under the 21st section of the Bill of Rights, saving the right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the state.").  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.98.12.54 (talk) 08:27, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There is further misstatement of the law, as it makes zero provision in the article for transportation of a firearm for the purposes of use in a firing range or hunting, which is a major industry in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. What is taught in hunting safety courses is that the weapon is to be transported in the trunk of the vehicle, action open and the ammunition in a locked glove box (or similar), essentially proving that the weapon isn't trivially loaded and potentially harmful (as in potential criminal use).Wzrd1 (talk) 06:17, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: D&C cases, and misstatements of law

message: I placed a citation needed under the claim "The open carry of a firearm in the rest of the state is widely practiced and generally well-accepted by local law enforcement." From my knowledge of Commonwealth LEO practices, one manages to acquire the direct, personal attention of nearly every LEO that sees someone practicing open carry. That said, I only have direct experience with a mere six counties of the Commonwealth.Wzrd1 (talk) 06:14, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  In the cities of the first class section 

message: This section is disorganized. A state can be in two categories simultaneously.  For example, Wyoming is both unilaterally recognizes the right of all citizens to carry concealed and Pennsylvania recognizes permits issues by Wyoming.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.208.129.229 (talk) 07:14, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comity and Reciprocity