LTCF revocation without 6109(e)(1) reason specified or court outcome

[TerryKinkle]

The meat of a notice:

This is your official notification that your license to carry a firearm has been revoked. This revocation is a result of an investigation by the Local-Police-Organization-Name-Here Police, of a criminal incident, incident number 99999999. As a result of the investigation you were charged with harassment, disorderly conduct, and public drunkenness. In addition you failed to advise officer(s) you were carrying a loaded firearm prior to their search.

The law requires you return your license to carry a firearm to this office within five (5) days of receipt of this notice. Please forward your license to carry to our office along with the laminated copy via mail or feel free to drop it off in person.

Should you have any questions please feel free to contact me at our office at the number listed above.

Notification of this revocation will be forwarded to the Pennsylvania State Police Firearms Divison, Harrisburg, Pa. as well as the Local-Police-Organization-Name-Here Police.

Relevant facts:

A) Sheriff's revocation notice is without citation to which reason(s) of 6109(e)(1) are invoked to perform revocation (as required by 6109(i)?)

B) The alleged crimes (all are summary offenses) are still under information with the court; no verdict has been found or plea bargain reached.

C) There is no requirement to advise law enforcement of presently carried (loaded) firearms.

D) Sheriff suggested in person to (ex-)licensee that (ex-)licensee should wait until the outcome of proceedings (pending not guilty/dismissal of charges/similar) to apply again for a new license, implying no guilt would lead to new licensure.

Commentary:

The less-than-powerful revocation (alleged crimes not in completion of judicial due process and alleging actions not illegal or unsafe but contributing to the 'reason' for revocation; lack of hearing to adjudicate) along with the attitude transmitted by the sheriff indicates this was a nuisance revocation rather than one intended to stand.

Can anyone indicate the likelihood of a successful appeal/petition-for-review based on the information provided?

[headcase]

Originally Posted by TerryKinkle

The meat of a notice:



Relevant facts:

A) Sheriff's revocation notice is without citation to which reason(s) of 6109(e)(1) are invoked to perform revocation (as required by 6109(i)?)

B) The alleged crimes (all are summary offenses) are still under information with the court; no verdict has been found or plea bargain reached.

C) There is no requirement to advise law enforcement of presently carried (loaded) firearms.

D) Sheriff suggested in person to (ex-)licensee that (ex-)licensee should wait until the outcome of proceedings (pending not guilty/dismissal of charges/similar) to apply again for a new license, implying no guilt would lead to new licensure.

Commentary:

The less-than-powerful revocation (alleged crimes not in completion of judicial due process and alleging actions not illegal or unsafe but contributing to the 'reason' for revocation; lack of hearing to adjudicate) along with the attitude transmitted by the sheriff indicates this was a nuisance revocation rather than one intended to stand.

Can anyone indicate the likelihood of a successful appeal/petition-for-review based on the information provided?

Bring your revocation letter to a lawyer, right after you drop off your LTCF at the sheriffs office.

[Pa. Patriot]

Follow Headcase's advice above.

Some points:

A) Sheriff's revocation notice is without citation to which reason(s) of 6109(e)(1) are invoked to perform revocation (as required by 6109(i)?)

Yes, the notice points to the list of reasons. Too bad for them, mistake #1. It must mention the specific reason per 6109(i).

B) The alleged crimes (all are summary offenses) are still under information with the court; no verdict has been found or plea bargain reached.

Mistake #2 They will probably argue 6109(e)(1)(i). Lame. A good attorney will squash that.

C) There is no requirement to advise law enforcement of presently carried (loaded) firearms.

Correct. Mistake #3

D) Sheriff suggested in person to (ex-)licensee that (ex-)licensee should wait until the outcome of proceedings (pending not guilty/dismissal of charges/similar) to apply again for a new license, implying no guilt would lead to new licensure.

VERY bad advice. One has but 30 days to file an appeal for revocation. After which (if appeal is not filed or lost in court) one must wait 1 year to re-apply.

Commentary:

The less-than-powerful revocation (alleged crimes not in completion of judicial due process and alleging actions not illegal or unsafe but contributing to the 'reason' for revocation; lack of hearing to adjudicate) along with the attitude transmitted by the sheriff indicates this was a nuisance revocation rather than one intended to stand.

Can anyone indicate the likelihood of a successful appeal/petition-for-review based on the information provided?

I agree 100% based on the facts you provided.

A GOOD attorney should prevail in this. Good does not equal CHEAP.

[JohnUSCG]

Well thought out and reasonable on all points. Best of luck and be sure to let us know how things turn out.

[Damage control]

Terry,

What part of the state are you from?



DC

[pex]

Originally Posted by Pa. Patriot

VERY bad advice. One has but 30 days to file an appeal for revocation. After which (if appeal is not filed or lost in court) one must wait 1 year to re-apply.

Presuming this is derived from 18PA.C.S6114, which only sets out a single restriction and does not invoke the authority to act, where does this original 1 year reapplication restriction come from?

The action of the chief of police, sheriff, county treasurer or other officer under this subchapter shall be subject to judicial review in the manner and within the time provided by 2 Pa.C.S. Ch. 7 Subch. B (relating to judicial review of local agency action). A judgment sustaining a refusal to grant a license shall not bar, after one year, a new application; nor shall a judgment in favor of the petitioner prevent the defendant from thereafter revoking or refusing to renew such license for any proper cause which may thereafter occur. The court shall have full power to dispose of all costs.

Emphasis mine.

[Pa. Patriot]

Originally Posted by pex

Presuming this is derived from 18PA.C.S6114, which only sets out a single restriction and does not invoke the authority to act, where does this original 1 year reapplication restriction come from?

The "authority to act" is irrelevant. It's not an action, it's a condition that is clearly implied by the inclusion of the words "after one year", in the section of 6114 you bolded.

[pex]

Originally Posted by Pa. Patriot

The "authority to act" is irrelevant. It's not an action, it's a condition that is clearly implied by the inclusion of the words "after one year", in the section of 6114 you bolded.

According to 6114, there must first be a judgement. That judgement must be on a refusal to grant; revocation is not refusal to grant.

Even after those two conditions are satisfied, there is no bar to a new application after one year.

What the statute does not say is that there is any bar under one year, only that there shall be no bar after one year. (We can similarly conclude that Amendment 26 of the US Constitution does not say that those under 18 do not have the right to vote and cannot be denied that right because of age -- that federal or state law could not otherwise allow them to do this, either; only that those 18 or older must have that right.)

I don't see any other relevant statute in the PA UFA dealing with timeframe for reapplication when an application is rejected, a grant is refused, or a revocation is invoked.

Is there some case law that elevates 6114 further than what we see in the text?

[headcase]

That was what I asked previously also. The AG's office says there is no statute that they know of that precludes re applying unless you go to court and have a judge uphold the denial, revocation.... I am still without a clear explanation that says otherwise.

[pex]

Originally Posted by headcase

That was what I asked previously also. The AG's office says there is no statute that they know of that precludes re applying unless you go to court and have a judge uphold the denial, revocation.... I am still without a clear explanation that says otherwise.

Where can we find the AG's 'exhibit'?