pa2a.org


Share Thread:  
Negative encounter at Malvern Drivers License Center with Police response.
#31
shademtarmory;137367 Wrote:Maybe I'm tired from the day, but I still don't quite get it.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using Tapatalk

PennDot is not a county, municipality or township. They are a state agency. Pre-emption does not cover state agencies.

Think of pre-emption as like the law in PA where police departments cannot use radar, except for the state police. Well, every government below (in terms of power) the state of PA in PA cannot make up gun laws, but the state of PA can. PennDot, as a state agency, is above local municipalties.
[Image: pa_zps59e4c512.png?t=1379682235]
Reply
#32
shademtarmory;137367 Wrote:Maybe I'm tired from the day, but I still don't quite get it.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using Tapatalk

There are two threads on this topic, one here, one on another forum, PAFOA, both were posted by the same person, both have people claiming since Penndot is a government agency they can not regulate possession of firearms, some are saying state preemption is why PennDot can not prohibit firearms on their property.

While state preemption works to keep a town or county from overriding the state law, the way the preemption law is written it only mentions "county, municipality or township" not state, that is how the quote I brought here from the other forum applies to what is being debated here, at least in my interpretation as to what I read in GL's post on the other forum.
Reply
#33
Thanks guys!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using Tapatalk
"There is no hunting like the hunting of man. And those who have hunted armed men long enough and liked it, never care for anything else thereafter."
-Ernest Hemingway
Reply
#34
I agree that 6120 doesn't cover state agencies, I never thought it did. I'm still wondering about 6109(m.3)(2) though.

My thoughts are that 6120 doesn't have to cover state agencies, that there are other governing statutes or regulations, something the legislature has created to establish what agencies can and cannot do. Unlike a private enterprise which can operate with far greater freedom and can basically do whatever they want as long as they remain within the law, I believe state agencies are limited in that they can only act within the laws governing their activities.

Put another way, if there is no law prohibiting it, I can do it as it is defacto legal. If there is no law allowing it, a state agency cannot do it, as it would be defacto illegal. So... where does PaDOT get the authority to blanket-ban guns from their centers?
“Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.”

William Pitt
Reply
#35
Just out of curiosity, where does it say that if law doesn't prohibit it that it's legal for us but if law doesn't allow it then it's illegal for the government to do it? As in, why the double standard?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using Tapatalk
"There is no hunting like the hunting of man. And those who have hunted armed men long enough and liked it, never care for anything else thereafter."
-Ernest Hemingway
Reply
#36
shademtarmory;137382 Wrote:Just out of curiosity, where does it say that if law doesn't prohibit it that it's legal for us but if law doesn't allow it then it's illegal for the government to do it? As in, why the double standard?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using Tapatalk

I don't understand your question. If law doesn't allow something... wouldn't that mean it's illegal?

Edit: Oh, I think I see what you're saying. I took it as if something was against the law, why is it illegal for the gov? But you mean, if it's not prohibited by law then why can't they do it? How about Article 1, Section 21 of our state constitution?

Quote:§ 21. Right to bear arms.
The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.
When they come for my guns; It is not my right, at that point,
but my responsibility to respond in the name of liberty.
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#37
Xavier: Yes and no. You understand my question, I think. But Article 1, Section 21 outright says our right shall not be questioned. I'm talking about a scenario such as what you went through. For example, if the law doesn't say I can't eat ham sandwiches, then I can eat ham sandwiches. But, if the law doesn't say that the government can eat ham sandwiches, then why can't the government eat ham sandwiches either?

So, apply that to your scenario. If the law doesn't say you can't carry on certain government properties, then you can do it. But, if the law doesn't say that that government agencies can't make rules or regs saying you can't carry on certain government properties, why can't they do it? Like, why the double standard?

I know. Stupid analogy.

EDIT: Of course, if you look at the key subsections of 6109...

Quote:(a) PURPOSE OF LICENSE. — A license to carry a firearm shall be for the purpose of carrying a firearm concealed on or about one’s person or in a vehicle throughout this Commonwealth.
...
(m.2) INCONSISTENT PROVISIONS. — Notwithstanding the provisions of section 7506 (relating to violation of rules regarding conduct on Commonwealth property), 75 Pa.C.S. § 7727 (relating to additional limitations on operation) or the act of June 28, 1995 (P.L. 89, No. 18), known as the Conservation and Natural Resources Act, and regulations promulgated under that act, a firearm may be carried as provided in subsection (a) by:
(1) a law enforcement officer whose current identification as a law enforcement officer shall be construed as a valid license to carry a firearm; or
(2) any licensee.
(m.3) CONSTRUCTION. — Nothing in this section shall be construed to:
(1) Permit the hunting or harvesting of any wildlife with a firearm or ammunition not otherwise permitted by 34 Pa.C.S. (relating to game).
(2) Authorize any Commonwealth agency to regulate the possession of firearms in any manner inconsistent with the provisions of this title.

This infers that you can safely carry a concealed firearm, but doesn't necessarily say that you can openly carry a firearm if the agency doesn't permit it. That's my take on it anyway. Feel free to correct me if I'm way off.
"There is no hunting like the hunting of man. And those who have hunted armed men long enough and liked it, never care for anything else thereafter."
-Ernest Hemingway
Reply
#38
shademtarmory;137382 Wrote:Just out of curiosity, where does it say that if law doesn't prohibit it that it's legal for us but if law doesn't allow it then it's illegal for the government to do it? As in, why the double standard?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using Tapatalk

Let me word it another way, and first, I'm simplifying, likely over simplifying. We codify in law the things citizens cannot do, basically malum in se, or malum prohibitum, but in order for it to be illegal for us citizens to do something, in order for something to be prohibited, there must be some law against it, right?

Obviously those same laws (mostly) apply to government agencies and employees as well, with certain obvious exceptions, but even those exceptions are spelled out within the law.

But referring to the acts and activities of government agents and agencies, the things they are permitted to do are spelled out within the law as well. The very Constitution was supposed to spell out the limits of what government can do.

A good example might be the powers and authority placed in officers of the law. What they can do is carefully spelled out, and they do not have unlimited powers, they have only those that are spelled out in the law, and they cannot legally go beyond that. Yes, I know we see exceptions to this, but this is the way it's supposed to work.

In the same vein, the law specifically prohibits someone like me from those certain powers and authority and I know I cannot do certain acts because the law says so.

If our laws grant authority to government, then agents and agencies are bound to operate carefully and closely within the law, and not make shit up as they go, like prohibiting firearms in PennDOT offices. In order for this prohibition to be valid, should it not be spelled out somewhere?

Does that make sense? Sometimes I lose track of how wordy I'm being.
“Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.”

William Pitt
Reply
#39
Curmudgeon;137385 Wrote:Let me word it another way, and first, I'm simplifying, likely over simplifying. We codify in law the things citizens cannot do, basically malum in se, or malum prohibitum, but in order for it to be illegal for us citizens to do something, in order for something to be prohibited, there must be some law against it, right?

Obviously those same laws (mostly) apply to government agencies and employees as well, with certain obvious exceptions, but even those exceptions are spelled out within the law.

But referring to the acts and activities of government agents and agencies, the things they are permitted to do are spelled out within the law as well. The very Constitution was supposed to spell out the limits of what government can do.

A good example might be the powers and authority placed in officers of the law. What they can do is carefully spelled out, and they do not have unlimited powers, they have only those that are spelled out in the law, and they cannot legally go beyond that. Yes, I know we see exceptions to this, but this is the way it's supposed to work.

In the same vein, the law specifically prohibits someone like me from those certain powers and authority and I know I cannot do certain acts because the law says so.

If our laws grant authority to government, then agents and agencies are bound to operate carefully and closely within the law, and not make shit up as they go, like prohibiting firearms in PennDOT offices. In order for this prohibition to be valid, should it not be spelled out somewhere?

Does that make sense? Sometimes I lose track of how wordy I'm being.

Yep. Works for me. Thanks!
"There is no hunting like the hunting of man. And those who have hunted armed men long enough and liked it, never care for anything else thereafter."
-Ernest Hemingway
Reply
#40
Curmudgeon;137376 Wrote:I agree that 6120 doesn't cover state agencies, I never thought it did. I'm still wondering about 6109(m.3)(2) though.

~snip~

After the GL quote I posted here the question of 6109 was brought up over there, GL has yet to weigh in. He's a lawyer, I'm not, so until he offers otherwise I tend to believe his thoughts to be true.

Of course I can afford such a luxury since I do not OC or carry at all in places marked against it. I am not willing to be a test case nor do I wish to be detained if I was discovered CCing.
Reply






Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  LEO Encounter PSP RJB_SCRANTON 14 4,767 07-16-2014, 06:54 AM
Last Post: Camper
  An OC Encounter Kind Of Day dc dalton 3 1,703 08-30-2013, 08:52 PM
Last Post: libra8
  Had my first open carry encounter. + KungFuBarbeque 1 1,086 06-26-2013, 08:31 AM
Last Post: Curmudgeon
  Positive encounter at Turkey Hill - Ephrata, PA Xavier 1 919 04-02-2013, 09:22 AM
Last Post: priell3
  Positive Encounter: Chick-Fil-A, Seven Fields, PA Paradigm 3 1,167 03-19-2013, 03:58 PM
Last Post: mpan72



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

Software by MyBB, © 2002-2015 MyBB Group.
Template by Modogodo Design.