Man carrying gun at WCCC arrested without incident

A Ligonier Township man who completed a probationary program in 2012 after taking an unlawfully concealed firearm into the Greensburg Social Security Administration office was arrested this week for allegedly doing the same thing at Westmoreland County Community College.

County park police charged Thomas Foster Altman, 66, who investigators said doesn't have a permit to carry a concealed weapon, according to an affidavit of probable cause.

This gentleman was charged with violation of a PA statute entitled "Firearms Not To Be Carried Without a License". Granted that this is a newspaper article and we are all accustomed to the abysmal standards of journalism prevalent today, but the elements of the offense are not clear to me here.

One, where is the evidence that the individual concealed the firearm on his person? The first indication that he had it was when it was placed in plain sight on a counter. Where is the direct evidence that he transported it in a vehicle?

Two, the article states that firearm was not registered to the gentleman. There is no firearms registration in Pennsylvania. There are records of sale maintained for commercial transactions involving a firearm but there are legal paths where a firearm may be transferred without generating a record of sale, e.g. between immediate family members.

Three - the fact that Westmoreland County Community College has a policy prohibiting firearms does not equal a criminal offense. A community college is not a school under the section of law that prohibits firearms on school property.

Lastly, for the open carry enthusiasts - carrying a firearm in a vehicle, loaded or not, cased or not, is illegal in Pennsylvania except under specifically enumerated circumstances (going to and from place of business, hunting, target shooting, for sale or after purchase, for repair, etc.) without a license. You can strap one on and walk around (except in schools, courthouses, government offices, anywhere in Philadelphia...) But if you gotta drive there, you could be in violation.

I'm not making any defense of the laws as they exist, but PA is the Wild West as Northeastern states go - it's pretty liberal (as in lax) compared to the states around it but there are laws and legal jeopardies abound.

PA is a shall-issue state. One avoids many legal problems if you get the license. From the article (caveat emptor) it seems that the accused and the LEO might both be deficient in their understanding of the law.

“Just get a ‘license’”, “the law needs to be liberalized”.

Sorry, but that’s the epitome of (C), IMO: nibble around the edges of the lawlessness and NEVER getting to the root of the issue. (O’Care, illegals/sanctuary cities, welfare, etc.)

1) A Right does *NOT* require a license to utilize
2) Gun ‘law’. See #1

‘Think tanks’, ‘Constitutional *experts*’ galore, but can’t bring up a case of a single Amendment, let alone articulate, the simple English grammar of the 2nd.

- Please define ‘infringe’
- How can ANY *law* jive with ‘shall not be infringed’??
Case closed.

While I agree with you, philosophically, the reality is that the law as currently written and enforced doesn’t support that position.

Go ahead and test the case, by all means. Wave your pocket Constitution at the trial judge. Maybe he, or the Third Circuit, or the Supremes will agree with you and overturn 100 years of precedent. Then we can all celebrate the landmark case of US vs. i_robot73, right along with Terry, Miranda and Heller in the pantheon of souls whose legal travails laid down milestones of individual rights.

Let me know how that works out for you. I’ll kick in a few bucks for your defense Go Fund Me page.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.