pa2a.org


Share Thread:  
Philly GPU STILL Asking for References
#1
nuke 
http://www.phillymag.com/news/2015/09/08...ladelphia/

...
Quote:No matter where you live in Pennsylvania, you'll need to apply for a license to carry a firearm. You apply in the county where you live. In Philadelphia, that's the Philadelphia Police Department's Gun Permits Unit on the second floor of 990 Spring Garden Street.

Although references are still requested on the application, that's only because the city's application is outdated. (Because of course it is.) As the result of a lawsuit, references are no longer required.

Read more at http://www.phillymag.com/news/2015/09/08...Dx3K3lt.99

Here's what the City said it was going to do as a result of the class action lawsuit:

http://www.phila.gov/InformationCenters/...it%20E.pdf
Reply
#2
Lancaster application still has the reference section, but the deputy working there crossed them out when he handed us the forms.
Reply
#3
I'd use Chris Sawyer as a reference.
Reply
#4
Bucks County Sheriff's office in Doylestown handed me an application requesting references on Aug 4.
Reply
#5
I don't recall the application in Beaver County asking for references but that has been a couple of years back.
sgtsandman, proud to be a member of pa2a.org since Nov 2014.
Reply
#6
Per statute, the PSP promulgate the form, which is to be uniformly used. While some counties may choose to not require the references, and others have agreed not to as part of a legal settlement, IMO, none of them have the authority to produce their own form, with or without a section for references.
Reply
#7
(09-11-2015, 04:51 PM)gnbrotz Wrote: Per statute, the PSP promulgate the form, which is to be uniformly used. While some counties may choose to not require the references, and others have agreed not to as part of a legal settlement, IMO, none of them have the authority to produce their own form, with or without a section for references.
This. Sheriffs cannot use their own form per state law and must use what PSP provides. I have a few questions on this topic before I bring it up to my Sheriff.

- Is this the only Court decision, in Philly? If so, it would only apply to Philly until there's an action taken in the Commonwealth Court.

- I've only read what was posted here and not the actual decision, but if there is a Court decision that applies to all of PA's counties, how is it worded? I ask this because it could still say that references maybe required. It's just that the law says the info on the application can't be disclosed to the public.

My Sheriff actually sends letters to the references on every first time application. He doesn't send anything out on renewals. Not saying I agree with it, just that's what he does. That's definitely going to change with the new Sheriff next year, though

- As far as disclosing info to the public, one could say that the references aren't the public and that it was the applicant who provided the references. Plus, the Sheriff could state that the references are needed to conduct the proper background check.

Just playing devil's advocate here before I take anything to the Sheriff about this.
"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
#8
shademtarmory;169092 Wrote:- Is this the only Court decision, in Philly? If so, it would only apply to Philly until there's an action taken in the Commonwealth Court.

- I've only read what was posted here and not the actual decision, but if there is a Court decision that applies to all of PA's counties, how is it worded? I ask this because it could still say that references maybe required. It's just that the law says the info on the application can't be disclosed to the public.

The Philly matter was resolved with a settlement, not a court ruling. This means that while the change in practice was agreed to by Philly officials, there is no corresponding "court decision".

shademtarmory;169092 Wrote:- As far as disclosing info to the public, one could say that the references aren't the public and that it was the applicant who provided the references. Plus, the Sheriff could state that the references are needed to conduct the proper background check.

The applicant "provided them" at the insistence of the government (where required as a condition of processing the application).

The prohibition is against "public disclosure", not "disclosing info to the public". You may say it's semantics, but these are the kinds of things that lawyers argue every day.

A quick/simple example:

If I were to take a single sheet of paper, and write on it the words "shatemtarmory has a LTCF" and then laid it on the street in the square of my town, I would have arguably violated the prohibition. The information was disclosed publicly, even if the paper blows away and no one ever even sees it. The statutory definition focuses on the actions of parties possessing the protected info. Your term would seem to rely on the result of the action, which IMO, is legally irrelevant.
Reply
#9
Part of the settlement was that Philly agrees to be supervised by the court until October 2016, meaning the Doe parties can intervene in the case and file petitions if there's a violation of the agreement.

(This would be Philadelphia residents)
Reply
#10
(09-12-2015, 06:12 AM)gnbrotz Wrote: The applicant "provided them" at the insistence of the government (where required as a condition of processing the application).

Yes, that is correct.

Quote:The prohibition is against "public disclosure", not "disclosing info to the public". You may say it's semantics, but these are the kinds of things that lawyers argue every day.

A quick/simple example:

If I were to take a single sheet of paper, and write on it the words "shatemtarmory has a LTCF" and then laid it on the street in the square of my town, I would have arguably violated the prohibition. The information was disclosed publicly, even if the paper blows away and no one ever even sees it. The statutory definition focuses on the actions of parties possessing the protected info. Your term would seem to rely on the result of the action, which IMO, is legally irrelevant.

What was said to me before was that it is not public disclosure to make inquiries of the references because the applicant provided those references knowing that they would probably be contacted. Plus any letters or phone calls are directed specifically to the references and no one else. Therefore, ensuring there is no public disclosure.


So, basically there's nothing out there that says you don't have to provide references?
"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






Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Philly, Pittsburgh, Lancaster (and others) file suit regarding HB80 soberbyker 8 1,798 11-12-2014, 11:02 PM
Last Post: sgtsandman
  Philly Councilman's "Peace Not Guns" Non-Profit Proved To Be a Fake ArcticSplash 6 1,427 06-01-2014, 08:57 PM
Last Post: Philadelphia Patriot
  Carry a gun in Philly? Make sure it's yours. Rik Bitter 11 2,092 03-19-2014, 08:29 AM
Last Post: bigdawgbeav
  Shootings by Philly police soar as violent crime plummets Jon Doe 6 1,174 05-23-2013, 06:39 PM
Last Post: Philadelphia Patriot
  Potential Pre-emption Violation- Philly trying to ban guns at Rec Centers Glock32 10 1,377 03-22-2013, 09:26 AM
Last Post: priell3



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

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