Federal Court Makes Shock Ruling on Pennsylvania Vehicle Firearm Ban

In a groundbreaking decision, Judge Christopher C. Conner of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania struck down the state’s ban on carrying firearms in vehicles without a license.

This ruling, a win for the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and its allies, significantly alters the landscape of gun rights in Pennsylvania. The Core of the Ruling

Judge Conner’s ruling dismantles the longstanding prohibition that kept Pennsylvanians from having firearms in their vehicles without a license.

This was challenged as an infringement on constitutional rights, leading to its overturning. The decision directly addresses issues faced by many citizens, especially those struggling to obtain a license.

Despite the recent ruling, a man was arrested under what is now deemed an unconstitutional charge in Pennsylvania.

A man from Perkasie faces a felony charge of carrying a firearm in his car without a license. Trajon Wilson, 20, had his 2019 black Hyundai Sonata searched when the police could smell marijuana from the vehicle. He is currently awaiting a preliminary hearing in late August.

Police said a Taurus G3 9mm pistol was sitting under the passenger seat that contained a loaded magazine with 11 rounds of ammo. Wilson is waiting for his preliminary hearing for numerous drug felonies and eluding police charges. This July, Wilson was taken to court before Magisterial District Judge Regina Armitage. The judge set the bail at $50,000 unsecured. What the Ruling Means for Wilson

How does Judge Connor’s decision affect cases like Wilson’s? The accused had previously pleaded guilty to a drug misdemeanor in Montgomery County Common Pleas Court in 2021, according to court records.

While his hearing will look into the drug charges, as of this ruling, it will be unconstitutional to charge Wilson for carrying an unlicensed pistol in his car. Law enforcement practices must adjust to how cases like Wilson’s will go forward. Expanding Gun Rights During Emergencies

In a notable extension of his ruling, Judge Conner declared that prohibiting firearms possession without a license during state emergencies is unconstitutional.

This ensures that individuals can maintain their right to bear arms, even under extraordinary circumstances, safeguarding constitutional protections when they might be most needed.

While many aspects favored gun rights advocates, the court sided with State Police Commissioner Col. Christopher Paris on a separate issue, dismissing a challenge to another segment of the state’s firearms laws due to the plaintiffs’ lack of standing.

Judge Conner indicated that if the plaintiffs file an amended complaint, the case will move to the Eastern District for continued litigation. This ongoing nature of the case suggests more developments are likely on the horizon.

The SAF is riding high on this win. Alan M. Gottlieb, the group’s founder, expressed his satisfaction, stating, “Each victory takes us a step further in our efforts to win firearms freedom one lawsuit at a time.”

This verdict is just the latest in their long-term strategy to reshape gun rights nationally.

Adam Kraut, SAF’s Executive Director, reflected on the decision, noting, “We will evaluate the judge’s ruling and determine our next course of action.”

This comment shows the organization is cautiously optimistic but remains ready to continue their advocacy through legal channels.

The ruling lifts restrictions for numerous Pennsylvanians, making it easier to transport and carry firearms in vehicles.

This change is poised to significantly affect those who view carrying a firearm as essential to their personal safety and constitutional rights.

The ripple effect of this decision could be substantial. Legal experts are watching closely, pondering if this case might influence other states with similar restrictions.

The broader implications for national gun laws hinge on how this precedent plays out in courts across America.

The community’s response to the ruling is mixed. While some celebrate the increased freedom to carry firearms for self-protection, others are concerned about the potential risks to public safety.

This debate reflects the ongoing tension between upholding individual rights and ensuring community safety.

In response to the ruling, Pennsylvania State Police, led by Commissioner Col. Christopher Paris, will need to modify their enforcement practices.

The now-unconstitutional provisions will no longer be enforced, prompting a reevaluation of current police protocols and interactions with the public.

Federal judges across the country are setting new legal precedents for gun owners and the situations in which they can bear arms.

Old Precedents from the 1800s State supreme court rulings...

You really need to read the highly suppressed and out of print 1982 Senate report on the RKBA. I have a paper copy.

https://guncite.com/journals/senrpt/senrpt.html

“The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner.”

19th century cases
16. * Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52, at 54 (1878).

“If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the (p.17)penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege.”

17. * Jennings v. State, 5 Tex. Crim. App. 298, at 300-01 (1878).

“We believe that portion of the act which provides that, in case of conviction, the defendant shall forfeit to the county the weapon or weapons so found on or about his person is not within the scope of legislative authority. * * * One of his most sacred rights is that of having arms for his own defence and that of the State. This right is one of the surest safeguards of liberty and self-preservation.”

18. * Andrews v. State, 50 Tenn. 165, 8 Am. Rep. 8, at 17 (1871).

“The passage from Story (Joseph Story: Comments on the Constitution) shows clearly that this right was intended, as we have maintained in this opinion, and was guaranteed to and to be exercised and enjoyed by the citizen as such, and not by him as a soldier, or in defense solely of his political rights.”

19. * Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846).

“’The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed.’ The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State.”

And the SCOTUS case that led to the Civil War..

Are Negros citizens...Dred Scott
“It would give to persons of the negro race, who are recognized as citizens in any one state of the Union, the right to enter every other state, whenever they pleased.... and it would give them full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might meet; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to KEEP AND CARRY ARMS wherever they went.”

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.