Received a letter from Rep. Lentz.

[Adam-12]

Still does nothing to remedy the situation of Philly Sheriff's denying or revoking without cause by using the "character" clsue for bogus reasons.

The l bill should be amended to make it an M1 to improperly revoke or deny an LTCF. Which, incidentally, would disqualify a sheriff convicted of this offense from owning or carrying firearms...

[tmg19103]

Here is a big legal point that Lentz is missing in regards to the “character” clause.

PA used to be a “may issue” state where sheriff’s had discretion on denying. Since the PA constitution provides that carrying a firearm is a constitutional right, the General Assembly changed it to “shall issue”. However, when the sheriff can effectively deny for any “character” issue, then the legislative intent of “shall issue” is not being followed.

If you look at the case law for why citizens have been denied for “character” reasons, it is all for documented behavior that amounts to a deniable crime like a M1 or higher, but the person was not convicted of it.

One example is a case where the applicant was denied and lost in court because it was demonstrated that by character and reputation from witness testimony he was a drug dealer. This makes sense because drug dealing is a deniable crime.

However, we are seeing cases where a person is denied because he has a minor M3 that is not cause to deny and for a brief period in his life took anti-depressants, yet that person has never threatened or performed an act of violence and members of the community testified he was an upstanding citizen and they had no problem with him having a LTCF.

That person appealed to the Commonwealth Court, they fixed the case against that person. The way they do this is by making it per curiam - so the judges are not named, they say it is “not precidential” - so it does not become case law and the PA Supreme Court will not hear it.

So, the judicial system is in cahoots with the sheriff’s in making this “may issue” instead of “shall issue”.

The only remedy is to remove the character clause or provide a specific definition in the statute as exactly what makes a person a danger to public safety via character. This would support he legislative intent of “shall issue”.

Thus, when Lentz proposes his bill, pro-gun legislators need to add an amendment that either removes the character clause or specifically defines what deniable character is. This would be in accordance with the legislative intent of the General Assembly, the PA Constitution, and the meaning of “shall issue”.

EDIT: I would suggest a defintion for the character clause would be community opinion that a person has behaved in a manner that amounts to a specified reason to deny - M1 or higher, but has not been convicted. I would suggest that if several members of the community testify a person regularly beats his wife up as they have witnessed it, but the wife is afraid to go to the cops, that should be reason to deny as it involves direct testimony of deniable behavior as beating a person up is an M1 and would violate a PFA. Giving the sheriff "discretion" to deny because a person has an M3 and some other some other innocuous, non-threatening behavior that the sheriff does not personally like makes the statute "may issue" and in violation for legislative intent.

[Torontogunguy]

And what of the recent SCOTUS decision that the individual states do not have the right to hamper the second nor fourteenth amendments, essentially cutting PA's concealed carry laws off at the knees? Or am I way off base here?

[renegadephoenix]

And what of the recent SCOTUS decision that the individual states do not have the right to hamper the second nor fourteenth amendments, essentially cutting PA's concealed carry laws off at the knees? Or am I way off base here?

your a little off base, the NRA allowed a cluse to be put into Mcdonald vs. Chicago that allowes for "Reasonable Restrictions"

[MDJschool]

Here is a big legal point that Lentz is missing in regards to the “character” clause.

The problem with the public, the media, the sheriffs (and philly), and the judges is that they do consider it a '"character" clause' and no further. The phrase is 'character and reputation' and those are distinct types of proof, because if they meant the same thing, there would be no purpose in 'repeating oneself'. Further, sheriffs and judges so often treat 'is likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety' as 'may act in a manner dangerous to public safety'. A perfect illustration is the case you represent as having found that 'being a drug dealer' is somehow equatable to 'is likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety'. (e)(1)(i) is not about infringing on rights of someone who can be accused for a crime but cannot or hasn't been convicted in a court of law, it is about recognizing someone who presents a clear and present danger where we absolutely just know (somehow, I guess) that 'legally' letting someone conceal a firearm is going to lead to criminal terror. It might even make sense to have that view toward concealed carry if the government hadn't spent ONE HUNDRED YEARS brainwashing people that open carry is or should be stamped out (i.e. private people don't get the idea to ban firearms on their premises because they spoke with philosopher or had some deep ethical concern about arms, they have simply been brainwashed about the legalities and realities of the thing, and succumb to ridiculous thinking like 'seeing a gun is dangerous but hiding it is not'. That's a result of brainwashing and the following colloquialisms that result from it over time.) So a sheriff needs to come out with evidence of LIKELIHOOD TO ACT and MUST do it through BOTH character AND reputation. If a judge doesn't even have evidence of LIKELIHOOD TO ACT or sees that it hasn't been found by having consulted both character and reputation in a legal fashion, a denial or revocation MUST BE OVERTURNED! That is 'shall issue'. (P.S. I don't know why you're trying to say that we went from 'may issue', which had been around for several decades, to 'shall issue' because the legislature realized we had a constitution. Every PA constitution since 1790 contains today's substantive Art. I Sec. 21 language, and the 1776 constitution read not too much differently.)

One example is a case where the applicant was denied and lost in court because it was demonstrated that by character and reputation from witness testimony he was a drug dealer. This makes sense because drug dealing is a deniable crime.

Can you cite that case? I have been trying to find a case that dealt with (as best can recall) either an alleged rape, DUI, or drug dealing that very much analyzed character and reputation evidence (although it's unlikely the case had to do with firearms licenses). I'd like to go read this case, too.

EDIT: I would suggest a defintion for the character clause would be community opinion that a person has behaved in a manner that amounts to a specified reason to deny - M1 or higher, but has not been convicted. I would suggest that if several members of the community testify a person regularly beats his wife up as they have witnessed it, but the wife is afraid to go to the cops, that should be reason to deny as it involves direct testimony of deniable behavior as beating a person up is an M1 and would violate a PFA. Giving the sheriff "discretion" to deny because a person has an M3 and some other some other innocuous, non-threatening behavior that the sheriff does not personally like makes the statute "may issue" and in violation for legislative intent.

This would be an abomination if the persons making claims or 'testifying' did not first do so under oath to be received by the sheriff, and if they were not called upon for cross-examination before a judge for an appeal. (e)(1)(i) is not about usurping due process for people who should be put before the criminal process. Maybe you are tacitly suggesting that there should be testimony in a pre-deprivation hearing a judge, to consolidate my aforementioned concerns.

[tmg19103]

I'm not going to get in to all this at this point, but from the points you make, the character and reputation clause should just be removed, then.

As for the previous post on the SCOTUS decision, the PA Constitution is still the enforcing document in this state.

Reasonable restrictions have always been allowed regarding firearms in PA - or felons would be able to own them under PA law.

It is the General Assembly that decides what is "reasonable" and what is not.

I would suggest the character and reputation clause is unreasonable as it is vague and overbroad.

It needs to be re-written in manner that specifically defines what makes one LIKELY to act in a manner dangerous to public safety based upon character and reputation, or it needs to be removed.

[MDJschool]

I'm not going to get in to all this at this point, but from the points you make, the character and reputation clause should just be removed, then.
[...]
Reasonable restrictions have always been allowed regarding firearms in PA - or felons would be able to own them under PA law.

It is the General Assembly that decides what is "reasonable" and what is not.

Well I not only see no need for (e)(1)(i) but also no need for every penal law relating to firearms licensing at all (I would have just said 6109, but I see the need for reciprocity...just not illegal criminal statues.)

Reasonable restrictions have not always been allowed...in fact I'm not sure they've ever been allowed. You're going to have to find a reasonable citation for that, and I find it doubtful you will be able to find one. Every PA right-to-bear-arms case I have seen has devoted no analysis to the right or the constitution, instead taking a paragraph to explain that 'no right is absolute; reasonable regulation is reasonable', and if any citation is to be had, it is either a citation to an 1875 per curiam opinion that A) devotes no more than 2 sentences to the right to bear arms, B) cites no authority for the declaration, and C) refers to a statute or indictment that at least has some sort of a connection to an actual or potential victim; otherwise, the citation is to a case that cites that 1875 case. The truth is that we really have no meaningful jurisprudence on the right to bear arms at all (except maybe that one dreadful case about applying the GCA and calling usurping the right to bear arms a 'civil disability' instead of a 'punishment'; maybe an analysis of something, not necessarily the PA right to bear arms, was done, I'll have to check).

The only time any judge has taken time to analyze the PA Constitution as it regards the right to bear arms is a Kentucky judge in 1822 who was looking at the KY Constitution, itself having taken (verbatim, for the right to bear arms) from the PA Constitution. That judge held that impairing the right to bear arms in any way was 'simply hogwash' (well, it was something along those lines) and struck down the statute largely barring the 'concealed wearing' of not only certain pistols but also several other types of arms/weapons, some of which might come under our 18 Pa.C.S. 908.

The Bliss court got it right. Yet while other state courts in the 19th century recognized Bliss even though they didn't want to follow it, I cannot find Bliss in PA jurisprudence ANYWHERE for the past 185 years. The same right to bear arms in two states and no one ever brought it up in PA? Yeah, ok. So here we have no meaningful jurisprudence on the right to bear arms in PA -- our courts are ripe to receive Bliss. I might even go as far as to say that our courts have expansively applied Wright where it should not have been applied, and Bliss and Wright can co-exist: that prosecuting assault is fine as an 'affront to the right to bear arms if it is' (because that's what the statute or indictment looked like in Wright) but that without the infringement on another's right to life, liberty, or property, the government cannot intervene (as with Bliss.) However, I don't really think Wright meets our standards for binding precedent.

[tmg19103]

I personally see no need for LTCF's either. I feel it is unconstitutional.

The reason I say I feel no need to argue that point is this thread is about Lentz and his bill.

The reality is the General Assembly sees a need for a LTCF. Therefore, we need to come up with ideas that will at least allow citizens who don't have M1's or PFA's that the Sheriff or Philly PD don't like to still be able to get a LTCF if the out-of-state option is removed.

That's why I am making suggestions for countering Lentz's bill like getting pro-gun legislators to offer an amendment that defines specifically what character and reputation that makes you a danger to public safety is - in order to meet "shall issue" and constitutional standards, or to eliminate the clause all together.

If you say: "I am a law-abiding citizen and it is not my concern. I won't be denied".

Well, then 1) you don't live in Philly or surrounding counties and 2) who knows whether you might not have an anti-gun sheriff down the road, say the wrong thing to a cop at a traffic stop, and all the sudden you are a "danger to public safety".

Under this asinine character and reputation clause, it seems to me the sheriff can use just about any behavior that appears to question authority as reason to deny, and that is wrong.

It needs a specific definition as to what it means in the statute, and we need to press the General Assembly on that - even if you have a PA LTCF because in principal, this statute is “may issue” when it should be “shall issue”.

Everybody with a PA LTCF is potentially at risk. Lentz’s bill no different than the anti’s slowly chipping away with lost/stolen or one a month.