Yesterday, Chief Counsel Joshua Prince of the Firearms Industry Consulting Group, was successful in securing a monumental decision and Order in Suarez, et al. v. PSP Commissioner, 1:21-cv-710 (Middle District of PA); however, as the Order is complex and, in one regard, severs only a portion of 18 Pa.C.S. 6106, many are confused by the actual result. So, let’s dive in and analyze the statutes in relation to the Order.
First, we’ll start with the easy one, which was struck down in total – 18 Pa.C.S. 6107. Section 6107 provides:
(a) General rule.–No person shall carry a firearm upon the public streets or upon any public property during an emergency proclaimed by a State or municipal governmental executive unless that person is:
(1) Actively engaged in a defense of that person’s life or property from peril or threat.
(2) Licensed to carry firearms under section 6109 (relating to licenses) or is exempt from licensing under section 6106(b) (relating to firearms not to be carried without a license).
Thus, as a result of the injunction, during a state of emergency, individuals are no longer restricted in their ability to carry firearms upon the public streets or upon any public property.
Second, in relation to Section 6106, the Order provides that “[t]he Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of plaintiffs and against Commissioner Paris with respect to plaintiffs’ challenge to … the vehicle provision of Section 6106 of the UFA.” So, let’s look at the applicable portion of Section 6106(a), which provides
(a) Offense defined.–
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), any person who carries a firearm in any vehicle or any person who carries a firearm concealed on or about his person, except in his place of abode or fixed place of business, without a valid and lawfully issued license under this chapter commits a felony of the third degree.
(2) A person who is otherwise eligible to possess a valid license under this chapter but carries a firearm in any vehicle or any person who carries a firearm concealed on or about his person, except in his place of abode or fixed place of business, without a valid and lawfully issued license and has not committed any other criminal violation commits a misdemeanor of the first degree.
As a result of the Order, Section 6106(a) can now be read as follows
(a) Offense defined.–
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2),
any person who carries a firearm in any vehicle orany person who carries a firearm concealed on or about his person, except in his place of abode or fixed place of business, without a valid and lawfully issued license under this chapter commits a felony of the third degree.(2) A person who is otherwise eligible to possess a valid license under this chapter but
carries a firearm in any vehicle or any person whocarries a firearm concealed on or about his person, except in his place of abode or fixed place of business, without a valid and lawfully issued license and has not committed any other criminal violation commits a misdemeanor of the first degree.
I’ve used strikethrough to show exactly what was struck by the Court. As a result of this, one, including those between 18 and 20, in the absence of a license to carry firearms, can now carry a loaded firearm, in one’s vehicle, provided the firearm is not concealed on his/her person and is not in Philadelphia (as the court elected not to address 18 Pa.C.S. 6108).
So, of course, many will ask whether this applies to all forms of firearms or just handguns. While amendments to Section 6106 suggest that it applies to all forms of firearms, not just handguns, there is, nevertheless, another provision, 18 Pa.C.S. 6106.1, which prohibits carrying a loaded rifle or shotgun in a vehicle, which has yet to be challenged.
Hopefully this helps our readers decipher the Order. Of course, as we said, we anticipate that appeals will be taken to this decision.
If your state or federal constitutional rights have been violated, contact FICG today to discuss your options.
Firearms Industry Consulting Group® (FICG®) is a registered trademark and division of Civil Rights Defense Firm, P.C., with rights and permissions granted to Prince Law Offices, P.C. to use in this article.
Thanks for explanation and clarification.
LikeLiked by 1 person
So if this holds up,
Pa. will finally have meaningful open carry after all these hundreds of years, right?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Correct
LikeLiked by 1 person
Also, will this sort of solve the problem for those persons who are legally able to buy handguns but still denied carry permits?
LikeLiked by 1 person
To a degree, as they’ll at least be able to carry a loaded firearm in their vehicle, provided it isn’t concealed on their person, and to open carry. They will still be prevented from concealed carrying.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for your work!
LikeLiked by 1 person
could you explain what just happened with the Lara v Evanchick case?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Are you referring to the PSP Commissioner appealing the decision to the US Supreme Court? That was pretty much expected across the board. It would’ve been a surprise if he didn’t, although I understand some other states, with similar restrictions, were trying to dissuade him from appealing, as everyone pretty much expects SCOTUS to hold that 18-to-20-yr-olds have Second Amendment rights, if they take up the case.
LikeLiked by 1 person
so u believe that we will gain the right to CC? How long does something like this typically take?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Does this ruling have effect just in the Middle District of PA or the entire state?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Super. Your work is appreciated by all 2A types, and should be appreciated by everyone concerned with self defense.
LikeLiked by 1 person