Gary Young Crawford County - Another improper LTCF revocation?

[GunLawyer001]

I would argue that the PA LTCF is a right, not a privilege.

PA is a "shall issue" jurisdiction. You are entitled to the license if you meet the minimum requirements. You can forfeit that right, just like you can forfeit your freedom by committing crimes. But the default is that you're entitled under PA law.

It's a little bit like "entitlement" programs like Welfare, that the law is set up for you to receive the license if you meet the criteria, it can't be denied arbitrarily, but it will be taken back if you become disqualified.

If it were a privilege, like getting a pardon from the Governor, then there'd be no route to appeal the denial. When the Sheriff revokes your permit, you can appeal to the Court of Common Pleas and assert your rights, and the burden shifts to the Sheriff to prove that you are not entitled anymore. Regardless of the inadequate and conclusory reasons provided on the revocation letter, the Sheriff is required to provide specific disqualifying facts and law to the Court, or he loses.

I'm not thrilled with the "character or reputation" catch-all, because Sheriffs use it the way that cops are accustomed to using the "disorderly conduct" statute, to punish people who they dislike but who haven't actually violated the law. The evidence is that cops and DA's mostly can't be trusted with open-ended statutes, any more than salespeople can be trusted with unlimited expense accounts, or Washington can be trusted with the unlimited ability to tax the citizens.

[Jared McLaughlin]

Originally Posted by lildobe

What part of "Shall Not Be Questioned" does Sheriff Hazen not understand?

(At least - that's my opinion...)

Note that Hazen is not a Sheriff.

[Philadelphia]

Originally Posted by GunLawyer001

It's a little bit like "entitlement" programs like Welfare, that the law is set up for you to receive the license if you meet the criteria, it can't be denied arbitrarily, but it will be taken back if you become disqualified.

With regard to concealed carry, that's a good analogy. It is unquestionably presently a statutory "right" no matter how one looks at it.

I think we need to send copies of all of these news reports to our reps in the assembly. Reigning in these "misguided" sheriffs and CLEOs needs a bump in priority on the legislative docket.

[lildobe]

Originally Posted by Jared McLaughlin

Note that Hazen is not a Sheriff.

Oops - my bad; misread the article.

[**v**]

Let's see if we can't get some more action on this situation...

http://digg.com/politics/Crawford_Sh...etired_teacher

[gnbrotz]

I have obtained copies of all documents on record with the Crawford County Prothonotary's Office regarding this case. I hope to have them scanned and online early next week.

At first glance, there doesn't appear to be any earth shattering info to tip opinion on the case in either direction. It all looks like pretty standard stuff.

[fingers80002]

Originally Posted by GunLawyer001

I would argue that the PA LTCF is a right, not a privilege.

PA is a "shall issue" jurisdiction. You are entitled to the license if you meet the minimum requirements. You can forfeit that right, just like you can forfeit your freedom by committing crimes. But the default is that you're entitled under PA law.

It's a little bit like "entitlement" programs like Welfare, that the law is set up for you to receive the license if you meet the criteria, it can't be denied arbitrarily, but it will be taken back if you become disqualified.

If it were a privilege, like getting a pardon from the Governor, then there'd be no route to appeal the denial. When the Sheriff revokes your permit, you can appeal to the Court of Common Pleas and assert your rights, and the burden shifts to the Sheriff to prove that you are not entitled anymore. Regardless of the inadequate and conclusory reasons provided on the revocation letter, the Sheriff is required to provide specific disqualifying facts and law to the Court, or he loses.

I'm not thrilled with the "character or reputation" catch-all, because Sheriffs use it the way that cops are accustomed to using the "disorderly conduct" statute, to punish people who they dislike but who haven't actually violated the law. The evidence is that cops and DA's mostly can't be trusted with open-ended statutes, any more than salespeople can be trusted with unlimited expense accounts, or Washington can be trusted with the unlimited ability to tax the citizens.

That's why we need law speaking people in our ranks to help fight the left.
Also to translate for us "common folks".

[Statkowski]

If it were a privilege, like getting a pardon from the Governor, then there'd be no route to appeal the denial. When the Sheriff revokes your permit, you can appeal to the Court of Common Pleas and assert your rights, and the burden shifts to the Sheriff to prove that you are not entitled anymore. Regardless of the inadequate and conclusory reasons provided on the revocation letter, the Sheriff is required to provide specific disqualifying facts and law to the Court, or he loses.

If you have a driver's license, or a law license, or any other license issued by the Commonwealth, in order to have it revoked there has to be a hearing of some sort. That's called "Due Process" - presumed innocent until found guilty.

In the case of an LTCF, however, the sheriff can revoke it (arbitrarily, as we have seen in some cases) and then the individual has to fight, at their own expense, to get it unrevoked. Call it what you want, but it certainly doesn't sound like "Due Process" to me - it sounds more like presumed guilty until found innocent.

[gnbrotz]

All documents filed in the Gary Young case are now available online as .pdf files:

Appeal filing

Misc. documents - Notice of appearance filed by attorneys, order of court setting date for the hearing

Sheriff's Response

[lildobe]

Originally Posted by gnbrotz

All documents filed in the Gary Young case are now available online as .pdf files:

Thanks for taking the time to get these online, Greg!

+5!

ETA:

After reading through the Appeal and Response, I get the distinct impression the the Sheriff is saying that "I didn't do anything wrong. Why? Becasue I said I didn't do anything wrong."

As for the claim that there is no right to a "pre-deprivation hearing" ... that sounds a lot like they believe in "Guilty until Proven Innocent." A person should not have to spend thousands of dollars fighting a revocation when they have done nothing wrong! Even the privilege of driving (which isn't a right) you have the option for a pre-revocation hearing if you want it!

This whole thing is stinking more and more. I can't wait to hear the outcome of the hearing.