pa2a.org


Share Thread:  
"uniform throughout the Commonwealth"
#1
Been seeing complaints on OH and MD and DE Forum about how PA would have good LTCF system if it was the same process in every county. I always counter with that it's "supposed" to be but obviously it isn't.

Now reading 6109:

Quote:18 Pa.C.S. § 6109. Licenses.
(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.
(b) Place of application.--An individual who is 21 years of age or older may apply to a sheriff for a
license to carry a firearm concealed on or about his person or in a vehicle within this Commonwealth.
If the applicant is a resident of this Commonwealth, he shall make application with the sheriff
of the county in which he resides or, if a resident of a city of the first class, with the chief of police of
that city.
Form of application and content.--The application for a license to carry a firearm shall be
uniform throughout this Commonwealth
and shall be on a form prescribed by the Pennsylvania State
Police. The form may contain provisions, not exceeding one page, to assure compliance with this
section. Issuing authorities shall use only the application form prescribed by the Pennsylvania State
Police. One of the following reasons for obtaining a firearm license shall be set forth in the application:
self-defense, employment, hunting and fishing, target shooting, gun collecting or another proper
reason. The application form shall be dated and signed by the applicant and shall contain the
following statement:

It says the "APPLICATION" must be uniform. I don't see where the "process" must be uniform. ???
[Image: 5c220c63-8b97-4da9-ab3c-287f26620991_zps529d180f.jpg]
Reply
#2
mrjam2jab;29970 Wrote:Been seeing complaints on OH and MD and DE Forum about how PA would have good LTCF system if it was the same process in every county. I always counter with that it's "supposed" to be but obviously it isn't.

Now reading 6109:

Quote:18 Pa.C.S. § 6109. Licenses.
(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.
(b) Place of application.--An individual who is 21 years of age or older may apply to a sheriff for a
license to carry a firearm concealed on or about his person or in a vehicle within this Commonwealth.
If the applicant is a resident of this Commonwealth, he shall make application with the sheriff
of the county in which he resides or, if a resident of a city of the first class, with the chief of police of
that city.
Form of application and content.--The application for a license to carry a firearm shall be
uniform throughout this Commonwealth
and shall be on a form prescribed by the Pennsylvania State
Police. The form may contain provisions, not exceeding one page, to assure compliance with this
section. Issuing authorities shall use only the application form prescribed by the Pennsylvania State
Police. One of the following reasons for obtaining a firearm license shall be set forth in the application:
self-defense, employment, hunting and fishing, target shooting, gun collecting or another proper
reason. The application form shall be dated and signed by the applicant and shall contain the
following statement:

It says the "APPLICATION" must be uniform. I don't see where the "process" must be uniform. ???

6120 prohibits municipalities from regulating the possession and transportation of firearms in any way.

6109(d) and 6109(e) spell out the nature and process for the background check and state that after the check - and no more time than 45 days - the Sheriff must either issue or deny the applicant a LTCF.

Combining these makes, imho, a strong case that the application process should be consistent throughout PA. IANAL.
Reply
#3
The process was never spelled out by the legislature, not even the application. All they did was give the SP the authority to develop the form, include things that must be on the form, and give the issuing authority the guidelines for what they must accomplish, not exactly how. That is why there are differences. In the end, they can use the guidelines to make you jump through a few hoops and wait 45 days, or issue on the spot, or any combination between.
headcase, bitch-slapping gun myth perpetuators since 2006.
Reply
#4
headcase;30099 Wrote:The process was never spelled out by the legislature, not even the application. All they did was give the SP the authority to develop the form, include things that must be on the form, and give the issuing authority the guidelines for what they must accomplish, not exactly how. That is why there are differences. In the end, they can use the guidelines to make you jump through a few hoops and wait 45 days, or issue on the spot, or any combination between.

Having to wait up to 45 days can't really be argued as a violation of the process. Having to wait up to 45 business days, however, is. Violators should be taken to court over such.

Police check cards is a violation. The law says the sheriff conducts the investigation, not that the applicant has to do his work for him. Again, violators should be taken to court over such.

The various Philadelphia hoops one has to jump through are numerous violations. Again, it's court time.

But, everyone wants their license with minimal hassle, so they give in the local violations. Once they have their license they no longer have standing, so it becomes a dead issue, except for the next applicant.

Overall, however, the application process is relatively uniform throughout the Commonwealth, with exceptions.
RetMSgt, proud to be a member of pa2a.org since Sep 2012.
Reply
#5
RetMSgt;31395 Wrote:
headcase;30099 Wrote:The process was never spelled out by the legislature, not even the application. All they did was give the SP the authority to develop the form, include things that must be on the form, and give the issuing authority the guidelines for what they must accomplish, not exactly how. That is why there are differences. In the end, they can use the guidelines to make you jump through a few hoops and wait 45 days, or issue on the spot, or any combination between.

Having to wait up to 45 days can't really be argued as a violation of the process. Having to wait up to 45 business days, however, is. Violators should be taken to court over such.

Police check cards is a violation. The law says the sheriff conducts the investigation, not that the applicant has to do his work for him. Again, violators should be taken to court over such.

The various Philadelphia hoops one has to jump through are numerous violations. Again, it's court time.

But, everyone wants their license with minimal hassle, so they give in the local violations. Once they have their license they no longer have standing, so it becomes a dead issue, except for the next applicant.

Overall, however, the application process is relatively uniform throughout the Commonwealth, with exceptions.
As much as I would love to agree about the police check cards, nothing in the statute prevents the sheriff from requiring them, and it can be argued that they are necessary to complete his investigation into the applicant's character and reputation. I am fairly confident that anyone who brings suit against a sheriff for requiring police check cards, will lose.

In the same vein, I am fairly confident that anyone who brings suit against a sheriff for taking 45 business days to issue, would win, after bringing up 1991.
headcase, bitch-slapping gun myth perpetuators since 2006.
Reply
#6
headcase;31510 Wrote:As much as I would love to agree about the police check cards, nothing in the statute prevents the sheriff from requiring them, and it can be argued that they are necessary to complete his investigation into the applicant's character and reputation. I am fairly confident that anyone who brings suit against a sheriff for requiring police check cards, will lose.

The applicant's responsibility, by statute - fill out a one-page application.

The sheriff's responsibility, by statute - conduct a background investigation.

For the applicant to supply the sheriff with police check cards would violate both parts of the statute. For the sheriff not to be able to figure out under what police department jurisdiction the applicant resides borders on laziness or incompetence.
RetMSgt, proud to be a member of pa2a.org since Sep 2012.
Reply
#7
and ALL of the PA Sheriffs should be accepting applications from non-residents, correct? That is another issue I see a lot of complaints about.
[Image: 5c220c63-8b97-4da9-ab3c-287f26620991_zps529d180f.jpg]
Reply
#8
RetMSgt;31547 Wrote:
headcase;31510 Wrote:As much as I would love to agree about the police check cards, nothing in the statute prevents the sheriff from requiring them, and it can be argued that they are necessary to complete his investigation into the applicant's character and reputation. I am fairly confident that anyone who brings suit against a sheriff for requiring police check cards, will lose.

The applicant's responsibility, by statute - fill out a one-page application.

The sheriff's responsibility, by statute - conduct a background investigation.

For the applicant to supply the sheriff with police check cards would violate both parts of the statute. For the sheriff not to be able to figure out under what police department jurisdiction the applicant resides borders on laziness or incompetence.

It does not violate any part of the statute, at all, as it is written. There is certainly an argument to be made about intent, but I reiterate, there is likely not a judge in the Commonwealth who would even chastise a sheriff for what would be seen as being extra diligent in his investigation. If you have the cash and the time, bring, or support someone with standing in, an action against a sheriff for it. I would be very interested in the outcome.
headcase, bitch-slapping gun myth perpetuators since 2006.
Reply
#9
headcase;31997 Wrote:
RetMSgt;31547 Wrote:The applicant's responsibility, by statute - fill out a one-page application.

The sheriff's responsibility, by statute - conduct a background investigation.

For the applicant to supply the sheriff with police check cards would violate both parts of the statute. For the sheriff not to be able to figure out under what police department jurisdiction the applicant resides borders on laziness or incompetence.

It does not violate any part of the statute, at all, as it is written. There is certainly an argument to be made about intent, but I reiterate, there is likely not a judge in the Commonwealth who would even chastise a sheriff for what would be seen as being extra diligent in his investigation. If you have the cash and the time, bring, or support someone with standing in, an action against a sheriff for it. I would be very interested in the outcome.

I'm highlighting the pertinent part. It was not originally a part of his/her investigation, at all. The only county requiring them was asking for them before they would even accept the application and begin their investigation. It quite clearly was not a part of their investigation as it was mandated to be done before their statutory duty to investigate took hold. Only now, after realizing how that destroys the 18 Pa.C.S. § 6109 (d) claim, has the sheriff begun accepting initial applications without the card being sent to police by the applicant.

Failing to turn in a police check card also does not fall under any aspect of 18 Pa.C.S. § 6109 (e)(1), particularly since the police check card was not, as highlighted above, made part of the sheriff's investigation under subsection (d). Not for older applicants, that argument only holds weight recently.

18 Pa.C.S. § 6109 still requires nothing more of an applicant than one form designed by the PSP and the proper fee. The police check cards were explicitly part of the application required by the sheriff using them up until a short time ago. Only now does the sheriff claim they are part of the investigation and offer to do them for the applicant as part of the 45 day process.

So, I would agree that right now, as the current process stands, the sheriff has a potential legal argument that a judge could side with. I will say though that the older process that was only done away with recently, did not make the card a part of subsection (d), it made it a part of the application. I would stake my bet that a court could use the changes in the process in defense of current sheriff actions by tearing into the old method if current practice were to be taken to court.
IronSight, proud to be a member of pa2a.org since Sep 2012.
Reply
#10
I would love for it to be so.
headcase, bitch-slapping gun myth perpetuators since 2006.
Reply








Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

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