The other side of an incomplete CCW revocation explanation

[pex]

We recently saw the revocation of Gary Young's CCW (http://www.pafoa.org/forum/concealed...n-page-17.html) and his subsequent appeal. One of the bases for this appeal was that the sheriff stated that the 'reason' for revocation was 18PACS6109(e)(1)(i), that Gary was

An individual whose character and reputation is
such that the individual would be likely to act in a
manner dangerous to public safety.

This came without further elaboration.


I am curious about the other side of an incompletely explained revocation. What kind of challenges have we seen to revocations which provide an 'elaboration' except to which clauses of 18PACS6109(e)(1) we are unsure? Are revocations that provide elaborations without citations less or more solid (than citations without elaborations) during appeals?

[gnbrotz]

First, I don't think many revocations actually get challenged. Second, short of someone revealing their situation in a setting such as this, or the media getting wind of it, it's very hard to track these cases down. Basic stats in the form of how many revocations occurred are published by the PSP, but we have no breakdown of the most often used reasons, and no access to the letters to know how much elaboration is given.

In the responses to both my own and Mr. Young's appeals, the respective Sheriff's asserted that citing the applicable section of the UFA was enough to meet the requirement of the law. Neither judge specifically addressed this point of law. In a case where the revocation is clearly bogus, there's no need to push that point in order to obtain a reversal, and in a case where a revocation is clearly proper, I doubt the judge would reverse on the technicality of 'no specific reason given for the revocation' (though I believe they should).

Knowing what I know, if I were a Sheriff, I'd give both the applicable reason for revocation provided by law, and reference the specific circumstance that I believed met the point I'd referenced. It would take one extra sentence, and remove one more thing that could be brought up in the appeal. Of course, Sheriffs aren't attorneys and typically don't have much legal experience. If what they're doing is working, there's no reason for them to do anything differently.