Hassled at the polls for OCing

[PeteG]

Originally Posted by GunLawyer001

The sheriff is relying on the "character or reputation in the community" exception to the "shall issue" requirement. He has to, because every other exception is clearly inapplicable.

. . .
You have no "reputation in the community" because you are not famous, ...

At least you were not famous before your situation became a "cause." Now, you are a public figure. And the more you seek attention, the more of a public figure you are.

[PeteG]

Originally Posted by gnbrotz

Mini Media Update

I'm really on the fence about being photographed at all, even after the hearing and without a firearm. I'm not "ashamed" of the facts, but don't want to be accused of trying to sensationalize either.

Between 1980 and 1995, my practice was national, and involved a lot of media coverage. I can tell you from long, personal experience that if your objective is to win your case and recover your license to carry, you should NOT be speaking to the press AT ALL. No photos. No interviews. No nothing.

Media representatives are not interested in you, your case or your cause. They don't give a rat's a--. They are interested in pleasing editors and making a name for themselves. The editors are interested in selling advertising, which means readership or ratings. They will therefore spin the story in the most controversial manner possible, regardless.

Reporters also get things screwed up because they are in a hurry or simply don't understand.

Even if they get the facts right, nothing they say can help your case. On the other hand, if you happen to have a news editor down the line that does not like you, does not like guns, or is just a bastard, he or she can twist that story to make you look very bad. In terms of your case and your quality of life, there is a definite "down side risk" to media coverage, but no "up side." Do the math.

Then there is the "nut case factor." Exposure to tens of thousands of people will inevitably include exposure to a hand full of nut-cases. That entials risk, for you and for your family. This story involves guns. Guns + "nut case" = potential involvement with stuff you really don't want to be involved with.

Finally, the vast majority of the people who know your situation at present are sympathetic to your cause. What do you have to gain by making every anti-gun zealot in four counties aware of your situation?

If you want to win your case, shut up and go win your case. Then hold a press conference, if you still want to, when you can say "I won."

Of course, if your objective is to carry the standard for the cause and gain publicity, nothing I just said applies. You should get Hangun Control, Inc. down there to do a counter-demonstration. That makes for lots of TV.

It is one or the other. Decide what you want. Don't dither in the middle or you will make a bollix of both.

[RLS]

When you win, is your LTCF expiration date to be extended for the time it was illegally revoked?

I don't expect a "yes" or "no" answer at this point, just bringing the question up for consideration.





Rick

[gnbrotz]

Originally Posted by GunLawyer001

This would be a trap. If you drop your appeal, the revocation becomes final, and you are statutorily barred from re-applying for one year; see Section 6114 of the UFA (it applies to denials as well as revocations.)

I'd gamble it's more likely yet another example of his lack of knowledge of the law. In any event, the result is the same. I figured there was some type of limit other than being permanently barred, but hadn't tracked it down. Thanks for pointing it out!

Any comment on what "The court shall have full power to dispose of all costs." means?

[gnbrotz]

Originally Posted by God's Country

Sadly it appears that I will not be able to make your hearing. I just can't afford a 10+ hour round trip plus dinner (gas at 3.20/gal now)at this moment. I wish you the best of luck and thanks for all you have done. It’s truly sad that it has come to having to defend yourself in court for breaking no law.

GC, I completely understand. I've been up in your neck of the woods and know it's quite a haul. I'm thankful I don't have to undertake such a trip myself in order to appear in court! I thank you and everyone for doing what they can, regardless of how big or small it seems. It's far more than I ever imagined.

[rwilson452]

If I understand correctly, between the time your LTCF was revoked and the time of the hearing there is a new sheriff in town. As your action is against the office of the sheriff not the person that is no longer the sheriff, It could be the new sheriff is just going to roll over on this.

[gnbrotz]

I disagree. My action is against a specifically named person, acting as Sheriff. It is he that will be in court, and it is his actions that will be reversed (if that occurs).

[GunLawyer001]

Originally Posted by gnbrotz

I disagree. My action is against a specifically named person, acting as Sheriff. It is he that will be in court, and it is his actions that will be reversed (if that occurs).

If the new sheriff has been sworn in, then the former sheriff has no standing beyond being a witness in the case. He no longer has the powers of the office, he can't reverse his prior decision. If he violated your civil rights, he could still be personally sued under Section 1983 (and the Sheriff's Department could be, as well), but that's an uphill battle.

The new sheriff could, in practice, either
(1) defend the actions of the prior sheriff; or
(2) he could affirmatively rescind the revocation and reinstate your license; or
(3) he could passively fail to defend against your appeal, and allow you to prevail by default (although you'd still have the burden of proof, if the sheriff doesn't make a case then you should prevail.)

His best bet would be to come to an arrangement with you right before the hearing (he could avoid "losing" and save face, while avoiding a public "precedent" in the Court of Common Pleas.) A lot of civil and criminal cases are settled immediately prior to trial, literally while standing in the courtroom waiting for the case to be called. It would also be your best bet, if you can assure a win on acceptable terms without undergoing the crapshoot of a hearing. This is why, prior to the day of your hearing, you should discuss with your attorney the terms under which you'd accept a settlement; whether you'd be willing to give up your right to sue for possible civil rights violations, whether you'd want to try to get any legal fees back, and what effective date you'd want for the new license.

The court might easily order the sheriff's office to pay your filing fee for the appeal (which was probably $75-$200 or so, I'm guessing), but it would be very unusual for the court to award you legal fees, even if you prevailed. That might be a negotiating point for you. As for the effective date of any reinstated license, it's my understanding that the old license is dead, and any new license should be good for 5 years from the new date of issue. You might lose at trial, courts are often deferential to decisions made by officials, so any negotiated win should be carefully considered.

[BB62]

Originally Posted by GunLawyer001

...but it would be very unusual for the court to award you legal fees, even if you prevailed...

A bit off subject (but maybe not) - can you explain why this is the case? It seems then that the "authorities" have little to fear from those they mistreat, unless the level of such mistreatment rises to such that a successful civil rights case can be brought?

In essence, they don't have much to lose, can repeatedly do the same thing to others (who probably won't know or discover that fact), yet the individual's bank account gets nailed?

Despite the presumed lawfulness of open carry, the answers I have previously heard regarding the above subjects worries my bank account a great deal.

Can you shed some light on things?

[Joe Smith]

I should hope he would get his legal fees back!

If we didn't pitch in the state was given free reign to take away his rights and close to 2k! Not cool.