Out of state dl, philly ltcf. Arrested

[Marcus99]

A friend moved out of state for a year or so, applied for a drivers license and address in the state. Long story short, he moves back to philly, one day carrying his firearm in his vehicle a leo stopped him and asked if he had any weapons, etc. He responded yes and gave the leo his out of state drivers license and his philly ltcf and he was basically arrested. What will happen now.

What does "basically arrested" mean? Has an actual charge been filed? Was he taken to jail? Or was he merely detained while the officer looked into the legality of the situation?

[Carson]

I've heard about some of those arrests: https://www.google.com/search?q=DARE...utf-8&oe=utf-8

Yes. And there are those also.

[jcourson]

(i) Revocation.--A license to carry firearms may be revoked by the issuing authority for good cause. A license to carry firearms shall be revoked by the issuing authority for any reason stated in subsection (e)(1) which occurs during the term of the permit.

one of which is:

(ix) A resident of another state who does not possess a current license or permit or similar document to carry a firearm issued by that state if a license is provided for by the laws of that state, as published annually in the Federal Register by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms of the Department of the Treasury under 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(19) (relating to definitions).

Therefore, as soon as he became a resident of Texas, if he did not have a Texas LTC, his PA license was revoked. After all, even if they do have constitutional carry, Texas also issues a license to carry. https://www.dps.texas.gov/RSD/LTC/faqs/index.htm

[knight0334]

(i) Revocation.--A license to carry firearms may be revoked by the issuing authority for good cause. A license to carry firearms shall be revoked by the issuing authority for any reason stated in subsection (e)(1) which occurs during the term of the permit.

one of which is:

(ix) A resident of another state who does not possess a current license or permit or similar document to carry a firearm issued by that state if a license is provided for by the laws of that state, as published annually in the Federal Register by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms of the Department of the Treasury under 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(19) (relating to definitions).

Therefore, as soon as he became a resident of Texas, if he did not have a Texas LTC, his PA license was revoked. After all, even if they do have constitutional carry, Texas also issues a license to carry. https://www.dps.texas.gov/RSD/LTC/faqs/index.htm

No.. It doesn't automatically revoke, the issuing authority has to revoke it.

If the issuing authority did not revoke it, it was still valid.

[free]

Therefore, as soon as he became a resident of Texas, if he did not have a Texas LTC, his PA license was revoked.

Revocation, of pretty much anything, isn't a passive activity. It doesn't just "happen". It takes an active decision, an act of some kind, to implement.

In this case - as far as we know, no "issuing authority" had taken action to perform a revocation - and therefore, none occurred.

[jcourson]

No.. It doesn't automatically revoke, the issuing authority has to revoke it.

If the issuing authority did not revoke it, it was still valid.

The verbage is "shall be revoked." Even if the issuing agency hadn't pushed it through the red tape yet for some reason, the LEO would have had just cause to assume it was revoked and since ignorance of the law is no (legal) excuse, the friend could still be charged.

Since it also follows that "Notice shall be sent by certified mail...and, at that time, notice shall also be provided to the Pennsylvania State Police...that the license is no longer valid." Presumably, the LEO ran it and saw that it was revoked and that the friend was committing a felony ("“any person who carries a firearm in any vehicle…without a valid and lawfully issued license…commits a felony").

[free]

The verbage is "shall be revoked."

Right. The language is exactly that, "shall be". Not "is". Little something called "due process".

Presumably, the LEO ran it and saw that it was revoked and that the friend was committing a felony ("“any person who carries a firearm in any vehicle…without a valid and lawfully issued license…commits a felony").

You are free to "presume" anything you want. But there is nothing in this thread that indicates the LEO ran anything, or saw anything with respect to a revocation. You MAY very well be correct. But nothing in this thread so far supports your presumption.

[Statkowski]

When (more likely if) someone receives a license/permit/whatever from New York, state law requires they notify the issuing authority immediately upon relocating, whether across the street or across the country. Pennsylvania has no such requirement.

[jcourson]

Right. The language is exactly that, "shall be". Not "is". Little something called "due process".

You are free to "presume" anything you want. But there is nothing in this thread that indicates the LEO ran anything, or saw anything with respect to a revocation. You MAY very well be correct. But nothing in this thread so far supports your presumption.

"Due process" would be detaining him for carrying on a lctf that is supposed to be revoked, then charging him, then court. No part of what I said ignores due process.

Why would it not just become a non-resident LTCF?

Agree with other poster. Cite your source for your statement.

On a side note...with regard to the CCP I had from my previous state, that state's law says that if you move out of state, it is still valid until it expires (and they don't even ISSUE non-resident CCPs)....just for comparison purposes.

Sure. But where is the requirement for the LTCF becoming invalid if you move out of state? Where in the law/reg is that stated?

You repeatedly asked for citations where the license becomes invalid if you move out of state. I gave it to you. Then I gave a potential scenario as to why he may have been arrested; which fits the conversation since the OP specifically asked 'What happens now?' and no one (you specifically and repeatedly) could figure out why he may have been arrested. So yes, I made a presumption. Since it is the only one put forward that actually fits the very few facts presented, then yes, this thread does "support my presumption."

[GunLawyer001]

"Due process" would be detaining him for carrying on a lctf that is supposed to be revoked, then charging him, then court. No part of what I said ignores due process.



You repeatedly asked for citations where the license becomes invalid if you move out of state. I gave it to you. Then I gave a potential scenario as to why he may have been arrested; which fits the conversation since the OP specifically asked 'What happens now?' and no one (you specifically and repeatedly) could figure out why he may have been arrested. So yes, I made a presumption. Since it is the only one put forward that actually fits the very few facts presented, then yes, this thread does "support my presumption."

There's an explicit process for (a) denying a license prior to issuance, and (b) revoking a license after issuance. I see no reference in the OP to a determination by the issuing authority, a certified letter, a period in which to appeal. Perhaps you could explain how you skip over the "revocation" part and immediately assume criminal behavior on the part of someone who possesses an un-revoked LTCF.

The statute requires courts to notify the issuing authority when someone becomes prohibited by a conviction, even a summary drug conviction which doesn't remove gun possession rights; that's so it can be revoked by the issuing authority per the statutory protocol. Under your theory, the conviction immediately and automatically nullifies the LTCF, so no notice would be needed and no formal revocation would be required. Your theory is wrong, and seems like something put forward by a bad police officer, someone like that cop who arrested the nurse because he wasn't getting his way on the warrantless blood draw.

The criminal justice system is not supposed to be used to punish those who you personally dislike, you're not supposed to arrest and book and drag a citizen through the process "just in case he did something wrong". If you smirk that they "beat the rap but not the ride", you've been the kind of lawless asshole who the Framers rebelled against. You're supposed to know what he did, and have a statutory basis for claiming that it's a crime. Any cop who can't do that should be pushing a broom or running a honey dipper truck.