Pa ccw
- Thread starter stevek
- Start date
- Status
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
You may eat at a restaurant that serves alcohol.
You may carry in a bar.
You may have a beer (or other alcohol) while carrying.
Don't be intoxicated while carrying, mmm'k?
You do not have to notify a police officer, and they do not have access to that information via their patrol car computer.
The decision of WHEN to notify an officer should probably be made before he notices it himself. I would strongly recommend mentioning it clearly, calmly, and politely any time you're asked to step out of the car or to reach for anything that's near the gun. The officers don't disapprove of you being armed, but they don't want to be surprised by it.
Here's a very good summary of our carry laws: http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=5815663&postcount=27
Check out everything else at www.nra-ila.org (click "Gun Laws"), at handgunlaw.us, and at opencarry.org.
PA is probably one of the three or four best states in the country for carry laws.
Stay safe!
-Sam
You may carry in a bar.
You may have a beer (or other alcohol) while carrying.
Don't be intoxicated while carrying, mmm'k?
You do not have to notify a police officer, and they do not have access to that information via their patrol car computer.
The decision of WHEN to notify an officer should probably be made before he notices it himself. I would strongly recommend mentioning it clearly, calmly, and politely any time you're asked to step out of the car or to reach for anything that's near the gun. The officers don't disapprove of you being armed, but they don't want to be surprised by it.
Here's a very good summary of our carry laws: http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=5815663&postcount=27
Check out everything else at www.nra-ila.org (click "Gun Laws"), at handgunlaw.us, and at opencarry.org.
PA is probably one of the three or four best states in the country for carry laws.
Stay safe!
-Sam
BullfrogKen
Moderator Emeritus
As Sam pointed out:
1. - Our carry laws only speak to intoxication. The level of intoxication is the same as for DUI.
Whether or not you want to eat there is up to you. Some bars don't have the best menu.
But PA's laws don't require you do anything regards to carrying in a bar besides don't get drunk.
2. - Pennsylvania has no requirement to notify.
1. - Our carry laws only speak to intoxication. The level of intoxication is the same as for DUI.
Whether or not you want to eat there is up to you. Some bars don't have the best menu.
But PA's laws don't require you do anything regards to carrying in a bar besides don't get drunk.2. - Pennsylvania has no requirement to notify.
Steve in PA
Member
1) Yes
2) No such requirement
2) No such requirement
travellingJeff
Member
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2007
- Messages
- 169
Come over to www.pafoa.org and join the forums, in addition to great information (lots of PA Attorney's there), we schedule lots of OC/CC events, lots of range time and, if ya do get in trouble, one phone call starts a BIG chain of events and brings big names into it.
To answer your question;
Carry in a restaurant, carry in a bar, carry when you drink, it's ok. No crime against being intoxicated and carring a sidearm, though it might not be the most pragmatic notion and if you do something stupid with it, the weight of the DA will fall upon you.
No requirement for traffic stop. I've never had a traffic stop when I was carrying, but stories range from officers that are "out of the car" and then "disarming" you for "Safety" (because whats safer than a person unfamiliar with your weapon drawing it, operating it's functions and putting it somewhere!). Where abouts in PA do you live? If you aren't in the evil cities on the Ends of the State (hehe!) you should be OK, most PA LEO's have undertaken this years mandatory civil officer training which deals specifically with OC and details that it's much safer to leave a law abiding citizen alone.
Of course, PA is also an open-carry state, something to think about. However, ANY carry of a loaded weapon in a car is CONCEALED, so it's worth having the LTCF for that purpose alone.
Which county are you in? Most counties in PA have decent Sheriff's that give ya the "no BS" lawful information. Some Sheriff's forget which branch of the government they work for and take it upon themselves to make law, which is absurd.
To answer your question;
Carry in a restaurant, carry in a bar, carry when you drink, it's ok. No crime against being intoxicated and carring a sidearm, though it might not be the most pragmatic notion and if you do something stupid with it, the weight of the DA will fall upon you.
No requirement for traffic stop. I've never had a traffic stop when I was carrying, but stories range from officers that are "out of the car" and then "disarming" you for "Safety" (because whats safer than a person unfamiliar with your weapon drawing it, operating it's functions and putting it somewhere!). Where abouts in PA do you live? If you aren't in the evil cities on the Ends of the State (hehe!) you should be OK, most PA LEO's have undertaken this years mandatory civil officer training which deals specifically with OC and details that it's much safer to leave a law abiding citizen alone.
Of course, PA is also an open-carry state, something to think about. However, ANY carry of a loaded weapon in a car is CONCEALED, so it's worth having the LTCF for that purpose alone.
Which county are you in? Most counties in PA have decent Sheriff's that give ya the "no BS" lawful information. Some Sheriff's forget which branch of the government they work for and take it upon themselves to make law, which is absurd.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Oddly, that is true. When I first got my Adams Co. LCTF the Sheriff gave me a pamphlet with some dos and don'ts. It listed carrying in a bar as off-limits. I happened to already know that that wasn't in the law, but all of the suggestions in that pamphlet were presented as though they were equally valid, though some were based in law and some were just "helpful" suggestions.
I'm sure this stuff arises because each county Sheriff issues and administers the permits on their own. The licenses from some counties don't even look the same as others.
I do have a question on the intoxication point. You seem quite certain that there is no BAC limit at which carrying a weapon is prohibited. I have been told by a number of people who really ought to know (instructors and even BullfrogKen himself!
) that the legal BAC limit for carrying a firearm is the same as for driving.However, I tried looking in the PA code online for that reference and I can't locate it.
Can you provide more insight?
-Sam
Zeke/PA
Member
I would make it a practice, if stopped by the law while carrying, to present my drivers license AND my CC permit.
Someone else mentioned carrying while intoxicated as NOT being a good idea.
Someone else mentioned carrying while intoxicated as NOT being a good idea.
Thanks for all the replies folks! My wife and I live (for now) in Corzinistan, aka NJ. We have our Florida and NH CCW, and will be vacationing in PA for a few days next week so the info was very helpful. I looked into getting a PA non-resident CCW, but since NJ is considered a "may issue" state, Sheriff Nau won't issue unless we have a NJ CCW, and as far as I know, NOBODY ever gets one approved 
:banghead:
My wife and I live (for now) in Corzinistan, aka NJ. We have our Florida and NH CCW, and will be vacationing in PA for a few days next week so the info was very helpful. I looked into getting a PA non-resident CCW, but since NJ is considered a "may issue" state, Sheriff Nau won't issue unless we have a NJ CCW, and as far as I know, NOBODY ever gets one approved :banghead:Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Some folks would, some wouldn't. There are pretty valid reasons for both opinions. Though the reasons against seem less likely to be issues in most rural parts of PA.
I've had the funny instance of the only officer in PA who's ever pulled me over noticing it in my wallet when I handed him my driver's license.
Right. Not a good idea.
But is it illegal? What does the code say?
-Sam
travellingJeff
Member
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2007
- Messages
- 169
Sorry, I can't. Everything I've read is in the negatory, as in, "no law exists". I cant find any law that prohibits this. Of course, if you're legally intoxicated in public, you've committed an offense. I usually limit myself to (2) two beers or glasses of wine,unless I'm at a large 5 or 7 course dinner and I can spread things out a bit. However, going heeled isn't a privledge as is driving a motor vehicle on public roads, it's a right that doesnt' vanish when you imbibe ethanol.
Of course, and this is the bottom line here, ACTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES. If you shoot someone while you're heavily intoxicated, you'd better have a horde of professional witnesses, some video tape and a great lawyer. On the other hand, if you've had a few beers and someone mugs you and kills your girlfriend and your sidearm is locked in the safe, no one will be able to console you.
Drink in moderation, know the laws, be a decent person. All else will follow.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Ha ha! I realized I was asking you to prove a negative, which is pretty tough to do. "Yes right here in the law it says, 'There is no law about this.'"
I completely concurr, however, in a great many states the legality of using that right does vanish if you've had a drink. And in some, the legality of acting on that right does vanish if you're on the premesis where alcohol is sold. To my way of thinking, my right to be armed exists whether I'm sitting at home on my couch, or knocking back shots of Tequila with the President in the Oval Office. (Well...some President, sometime...maybe.) However, the law is going to be against me sometimes. That's what I'm trying to figure out here.
Always
I'm TRYING! So far as I know it's just this one I'm unclear on. :banghead:
Wish I had your confidence. Common sense only takes you so far, under the law, and "decent" people sometimes find themselves in unfortunate situations.
But I try to be pretty darned decent.
-Sam
sjohn26
Member
STEVE:
OUTDOOR Nat'l park areas are now allowed ----Federal BUILDINGS (museums, etc) are prohibited by definition of the law!
OUTDOOR Nat'l park areas are now allowed ----Federal BUILDINGS (museums, etc) are prohibited by definition of the law!
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
WOAH! Not yet, they aren't. That's not going into effect until early next year (Feb, I believe) when the credit card reform act goes into effect. Don't jump the gun (so to speak)!
The battlefield is NPS territory so carry won't be legal there until the new law takes effect. The museum buildings will still (it seems) be prohibited as they are federal buildings.
-Sam
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Update on the intoxication question:
Ken and I quizzed a LEO friend of ours on that point last night. To his knowledge, there is no provision in the Code that makes it illegal to carry while intoxicated.
He said, "Theres DUI, BUI (Boating Under the Influence), and HUI (Hunting Under the Influence), but -- to my knowlege -- no "CUI".
As always, LEOs aren't lawyers and can't be expected to know all the details about every law. BUT, if there was any law against posession of a weapon while drunk, he'd surely know of it because it would be an obvious additional charge any time he collared someone for HUI.
Again...hard to prove a negative, but we're getting closer.
-Sam
Ken and I quizzed a LEO friend of ours on that point last night. To his knowledge, there is no provision in the Code that makes it illegal to carry while intoxicated.
He said, "Theres DUI, BUI (Boating Under the Influence), and HUI (Hunting Under the Influence), but -- to my knowlege -- no "CUI".
As always, LEOs aren't lawyers and can't be expected to know all the details about every law. BUT, if there was any law against posession of a weapon while drunk, he'd surely know of it because it would be an obvious additional charge any time he collared someone for HUI.
Again...hard to prove a negative, but we're getting closer.
-Sam
BullfrogKen
Moderator Emeritus
Sam, to be fair, Bill is a Game Commission Deputy.
He's going to be up to speed on those boating and hunting regs, because dollars to donuts he's writing a citation for those violations all the time.
He may not be aware of those laws dealing with simple possession while under the influence.
I'll go do my own research and locate the relevant language myself.
He's going to be up to speed on those boating and hunting regs, because dollars to donuts
he's writing a citation for those violations all the time.He may not be aware of those laws dealing with simple possession while under the influence.
I'll go do my own research and locate the relevant language myself.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
That is true, of course. I was simply extrapolating that, if he was citing a lot of guys for hunting while intoxicated, he'd almost certainly be aware that simple posession of the firearm in that condition was also an offense.
But I'd appreciate any further light you can shed.
Thanks!
-Sam
But I'd appreciate any further light you can shed.
Thanks!
-Sam
General Geoff
Member
I've scoured the entire Pennsylvania UFA (Uniform Firearms Act) but cannot find any reference to the term "intoxicated" at all.
BullfrogKen
Moderator Emeritus
OK. I just got off the phone with Kim Stolfer and verified the relevant law in Pennsylvania that deals with alcohol and firearms.
There exists Statutory Law for boating and hunting activities surrounding alcohol. Meaning the state legislature has bills that were authored by our state's congressional body and signed into law that specifically addresses the use and influence of alcohol while engaging in a specific activity. That's what Bill was discussing last night.
In Pennsylvania the law that addresses simple possession of a firearm while intoxicated is covered under Common Law. Meaning . . . there is no Statutory Law that has been introduced, passed, and signed by the Governor that criminalizes being intoxicated while possessing a firearm. And for us Pennsylvanians carrying a concealed firearm would be considered simple possession. Common Law is a legal concept in our nation that has been developed and defined over time in court cases that defines what compromises criminal activity.
In similar fashion, what constitutes our "Miranda rights" were defined the same way - through Common Law in the Miranda case.
Remember that most of what is considered "the law" in Western society, and the United States in particular, is not defined by a statute. A great deal of what compromises America's laws were brought over from English law, further defined through court proceedings and judgments, and isn't defined by a statute . . . because its Common Law.
In Pennsylvania, the Common Law addresses the possession of a firearm while intoxicated. And our courts currently recognize drunkeness as defined by the statutory law's definition of intoxication as defined by objective standards, like the statutory definition of DWI. The charge you'll face is covered under Common Law definitions of reckless endangerment and negligence. The cases that have gone through the court system which set precedence for reckless behavior and endangerment aren't codified under a statute. So there is no statutory law Sam or I can cite that show, "under Title XX, Section XX, Subsection xx", that define simple possession of a firearm while intoxicated as a criminal act.
But it is recognized as criminal behavior under Common Law as recklessness and negligence. There exists all sorts of behavior the courts recognize as reckless and negligent that isn't defined under a specific statute, and it'll get you convicted just as quickly as a statutory crime would.
All you need to remember is, in Pennsylvania, the standard of drunkeness as defined by statute is enough to expose you to a criminal charge under Common Law of engaging in reckless and negligent behavior. And you'll likely lose your license to carry over it as well.
If you want to specifically know some of the defiining cases that set those precedents, you'll have to go look those up on your own. I really don't have the motivation to do all the research and provide them here.
This discussion illustrates the problem with an amateur doing a web search to determine the law as defined by statute . . . which is readily available and easily searched . . . from consulting those who know the legal system and understand it is defined by things other than just statutes. Common law is not easily searched through conventional means.
There exists Statutory Law for boating and hunting activities surrounding alcohol. Meaning the state legislature has bills that were authored by our state's congressional body and signed into law that specifically addresses the use and influence of alcohol while engaging in a specific activity. That's what Bill was discussing last night.
In Pennsylvania the law that addresses simple possession of a firearm while intoxicated is covered under Common Law. Meaning . . . there is no Statutory Law that has been introduced, passed, and signed by the Governor that criminalizes being intoxicated while possessing a firearm. And for us Pennsylvanians carrying a concealed firearm would be considered simple possession. Common Law is a legal concept in our nation that has been developed and defined over time in court cases that defines what compromises criminal activity.
In similar fashion, what constitutes our "Miranda rights" were defined the same way - through Common Law in the Miranda case.
Remember that most of what is considered "the law" in Western society, and the United States in particular, is not defined by a statute. A great deal of what compromises America's laws were brought over from English law, further defined through court proceedings and judgments, and isn't defined by a statute . . . because its Common Law.
In Pennsylvania, the Common Law addresses the possession of a firearm while intoxicated. And our courts currently recognize drunkeness as defined by the statutory law's definition of intoxication as defined by objective standards, like the statutory definition of DWI. The charge you'll face is covered under Common Law definitions of reckless endangerment and negligence. The cases that have gone through the court system which set precedence for reckless behavior and endangerment aren't codified under a statute. So there is no statutory law Sam or I can cite that show, "under Title XX, Section XX, Subsection xx", that define simple possession of a firearm while intoxicated as a criminal act.
But it is recognized as criminal behavior under Common Law as recklessness and negligence. There exists all sorts of behavior the courts recognize as reckless and negligent that isn't defined under a specific statute, and it'll get you convicted just as quickly as a statutory crime would.
All you need to remember is, in Pennsylvania, the standard of drunkeness as defined by statute is enough to expose you to a criminal charge under Common Law of engaging in reckless and negligent behavior. And you'll likely lose your license to carry over it as well.
If you want to specifically know some of the defiining cases that set those precedents, you'll have to go look those up on your own. I really don't have the motivation to do all the research and provide them here.
This discussion illustrates the problem with an amateur doing a web search to determine the law as defined by statute . . . which is readily available and easily searched . . . from consulting those who know the legal system and understand it is defined by things other than just statutes. Common law is not easily searched through conventional means.
General Geoff
Member
Can you cite the case law on this (which is what common law is)? I'd like to see it.
edit;
I'll see what I can do..
edit; as a further aside:
I would consider this to be conjecture unless and until the specific case law can be found which explicitly covers carrying of a firearm while intoxicated.
Last edited:
BullfrogKen
Moderator Emeritus
General Geoff said:
No, for two reasons.
One - I'm not particularly interested in the actual cases. I've always understood this was the situation in PA. I don't make a living defending or prosecuting people who run afoul of this, so my interest level ends at what I need to know to protect myself from the problem.
Two - The makeup of case law means there are many, many cases that contribute to defining common law, and not only can case law go back to the founding of our nation, they often predate it. Only landmark cases that radically redefine, establish or change the common law become the reference case that the judicial system rests upon and cites for any further decisions.
General Geoff said:
Consider it conjecture all you want. It doesn't matter to me how you consider it. When a man of Kim Stolfer's reputation weighs in on the matter and verifies my understanding of how the judicial system will address the possession of a gun while intoxicated, that's all the verification I really need.
However, if you're unsatisfied with the current status of our understanding, or wish to see a defining case law on the matter . . . there is a way to achieve a it.
Grab a gun, get yourself publicly drunk, and get yourself arrested and convicted for public drunkeness with a reckless endangerment and negligence tied to it for possession of a gun. Allow your case to work through to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, and you'll have your defining case law.
As I said, I have no compelling desire to research it any further.
General Geoff
Member
Basically what I'm hearing from you is that you don't know if anyone has ever actually been convicted in PA of reckless endangerment on the grounds that they were merely carrying a firearm while intoxicated, but you (or Kim Stolfer) think that you could be convicted for doing such a thing. Is this correct?
BullfrogKen
Moderator Emeritus
No.
What you're basically hearing from me is exactly what I said. My personal thoughts on the matter have nothing to do with it.
I don't personally know a mother who's been arrested and convinced for leaving a child in a car while she went shopping in Wal-Mart in the middle of August. I can't cite a case name when a mother was convicted for child endangerment over leaving her child in a hot car. There's no statute in Pennsylvania that specifically defines leaving a child in a hot car while you go into Wal-Mart as a criminal act.
But we had a woman just last week in Lancaster County who was arrested and charged with reckless endangerment when she left her child in her car to go on a very brief trip into Wal-Mart to pick up a few items.
The officer witnessed what he understood as reckless and negligent behavior. The District Attorney agrees, and the judge has decided there was enough evidence to allow the case to be tried. And now she's up to the mercy of the court for the outcome. That's exactly how Common Law works. There are no amount of statutes that could define every instance of negligence or reckless endangerment. This is among them.
It's not about what I feel or think about the matter. Residents of Pennsylvania most certainly have been charged and convicted of reckless endangerment and negligent behavior over acts committed while drunk that aren't defined by statute, like DWI. Possession of a firearm while intoxicated is included among them.
But then again, hey, maybe you're right. Just what the hell does Kim Stolfer know?
What you're basically hearing from me is exactly what I said. My personal thoughts on the matter have nothing to do with it.
I don't personally know a mother who's been arrested and convinced for leaving a child in a car while she went shopping in Wal-Mart in the middle of August. I can't cite a case name when a mother was convicted for child endangerment over leaving her child in a hot car. There's no statute in Pennsylvania that specifically defines leaving a child in a hot car while you go into Wal-Mart as a criminal act.
But we had a woman just last week in Lancaster County who was arrested and charged with reckless endangerment when she left her child in her car to go on a very brief trip into Wal-Mart to pick up a few items.
The officer witnessed what he understood as reckless and negligent behavior. The District Attorney agrees, and the judge has decided there was enough evidence to allow the case to be tried. And now she's up to the mercy of the court for the outcome. That's exactly how Common Law works. There are no amount of statutes that could define every instance of negligence or reckless endangerment. This is among them.
It's not about what I feel or think about the matter. Residents of Pennsylvania most certainly have been charged and convicted of reckless endangerment and negligent behavior over acts committed while drunk that aren't defined by statute, like DWI. Possession of a firearm while intoxicated is included among them.
But then again, hey, maybe you're right. Just what the hell does Kim Stolfer know?
General Geoff
Member
No, common law is just another name for case law. In other words, a previous binding court decision must be referenced and cited in order for case law to apply.
Being arrested and charged with reckless endangerment, regardless of what act took place, is merely dependant on what a reasonable person would believe to be acting with willful disregard for the safety and/or well-being of others. This has nothing to do, per se, with common or case law, except that IF there is binding case law which explicitly shows a specific act to be considered under the purview of reckless endangerment, then there is less or no wiggle room for the defense to prove that it is not.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
So what we're in agreement on is that, IF you were observed by a law enforcement officer to be intoxicated and in posession of a firearm -- in some situation where the officer felt it was a hazard to public safety (could just be tipsy, with a gun, in a public place), AND that officer felt that he had grounds to arrest you for negligence, AND a prosecutor agreed with him that your actions constituted reckless endangerment, you could face trial for that?
Then it would be up to the jury to decide whether you had, indeed, recklessly endangered anyone?
If I understand the process correctly, it wouldn't seem that a specific previous case would be required, as the charge of reckless endangerment doesn't hinge on the specific act itself, but on the danger posed by whatever the act was, under the conditions it was committed, in the opinion of a jury.
It doesn't seem to hinge upon the prosecution being able (at least neccessarily) to say "Here is a case where this person did that thing and was convicted of this," so much as it hinges on the prosecution presenting A)the facts of the events witnessed by the arresting officer and B)the legal definition of "reckless endangerment" (or whatever other charge there would be), and asking the jury to decide if A=B.
Is this correct?
-Sam
Then it would be up to the jury to decide whether you had, indeed, recklessly endangered anyone?
If I understand the process correctly, it wouldn't seem that a specific previous case would be required, as the charge of reckless endangerment doesn't hinge on the specific act itself, but on the danger posed by whatever the act was, under the conditions it was committed, in the opinion of a jury.
It doesn't seem to hinge upon the prosecution being able (at least neccessarily) to say "Here is a case where this person did that thing and was convicted of this," so much as it hinges on the prosecution presenting A)the facts of the events witnessed by the arresting officer and B)the legal definition of "reckless endangerment" (or whatever other charge there would be), and asking the jury to decide if A=B.
Is this correct?
-Sam
- Status