Court Opinion

ID: 9747368
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-27 15:12:59.875919+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:25:23.235130
License: Public Domain

OLSZEWSKI, Judge,
concurring:
While I concur in the result reached by the majority today, I question the efficacy of the statutory scheme. Under current law, a person need only possess a license to carry a gun. Possess that license he must; produce it— even under threat of prosecution — he need not. The burden in a prosecution under § 6106 falls squarely on the Commonwealth to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, non-licensure. Commonwealth v. McNeil, 461 Pa. 709, 337 A.2d 840 (1975).
As the majority suggests, proof of nonlicensure may entail recourse to the central depository of the Pennsylvania State Police, an arguably unwieldy procedure.
*138An alternative may be to amend 18 Pa.C.S. § 6106 to require carrying and exhibiting the license on demand. Following the rule for drivers’ licenses, the statute might prescribe:
1) At all times when engaged in conduct defined by § 6106(a), every licensee shall possess a firearms license issued to that licensee. Upon demand by a police officer, the licensee shall exhibit the license. To provide proof of identity, the licensee may be required to write the licensee’s name while in the presence of the officer.
2) No person shall be convicted for violation of this section if the person, within five days, produces at the office of the issuing authority or the arresting officer, a firearms license valid in this Commonwealth at the time of the arrest.
Cf 75 Pa.C.S. § 1511.