An Open Question to our resident Lawyers

[CZ40P]

In light of the recent permit revocations by sheriffs in PA , I have been trying to research online. Specifically how these revocations have fared on appeal.
I keep seeing reference to "Harris v. Sheriff of Delaware County, 675 A.2d 400 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996". However I can not find this case online. I don't have access to Lexis/Nexis.


Anyone care to shed some light on this case and it's implications in revocations of LTCF permits by sheriffs in PA.


I also noticed that Philadelphia managed to revoke more than 12 percent of all LTCF issued in Philadelphia over the last five years.
That is a really ominous number. Most other counties in Pa seem to be much less than one percent. That amount of revocations had to generate a massive amount of case law. Have the anti's been silently establishing precedents while we weren't watching.
I don't think this bodes well for the future

http://www.psp.state.pa.us/psp/lib/p...006_County.pdf

[HiredGoon]

CZ, here is the info you seek

MICHAEL T. HARRIS, Appellant v. SHERIFF OF DELAWARE COUNTY

NO. 1645 C.D. 1995

COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

675 A.2d 400; 1996 Pa. Commw.

February 8, 1996, Argued
April 26, 1996, Decided
April 26, 1996, FILED

PRIOR HISTORY: [**1] APPEALED From No. A-42-98 of 1995. Common Pleas Court of the county of Delaware. Judge BATTLE.

DISPOSITION: Affirmed.

CASE SUMMARY

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Appellant firearm owner sought review of an order from the Common Pleas Court, Delaware County (Pennsylvania), which denied an appeal from an action of appellee sheriff that revoked appellant's license to carry a firearm.

OVERVIEW: The trial court had entered an order that denied an appeal from an action of appellee sheriff that revoked appellant firearm owner's license to carry a firearm. Appellant claimed that the trial court erred in relying upon hearsay in reaching its decision that good cause existed to justify the revocation. On appeal, the court noted that under 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 6109 the issuance of a firearm license could be contingent upon the character and reputation of appellant. Appellee had discretion in applying the standards under § 6109 for determining if appellant should be licensed. The court found that the challenged testimony was not entirely inadmissible as hearsay. Appellee did present other relevant evidence apart from the evidence challenged by appellant. The court viewing the totality of the admissible evidence concluded that the trial court did not err or abuse its discretion in affirming appellee's decision to revoke appellant's firearm license. The court affirmed the trial court's order, which affirmed the revocation of appellant's license.

OUTCOME: The court affirmed the trial court's order, which denied an appeal from an action of appellee sheriff that revoked appellant firearm owner's license to carry a firearm, because the trial court did not err or abuse its discretion in affirming appellee's decision for revoking the license.

[HiredGoon]

Here's some more interesting reading:

rving Gardner, Appellant v. Frank W. Jenkins, Sheriff of Montgomery County, Appellee

No. 903 C.D. 1986

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

116 Pa. Commw. 107; 541 A.2d 406; 1988 Pa. Commw.

June 10, 1987, Submitted on Briefs
May 11, 1988, Decided

SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: [***1] Application for reargument filed and denied.

PRIOR HISTORY: Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, in the case of Irving Gardner v. Frank Jenkins, Sheriff of Montgomery County, No. 84-12443.

DISPOSITION: Affirmed.


CASE SUMMARY

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Appellant challenged an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County (Pennsylvania) which dismissed his complaint in mandamus against appellee sheriff of Montgomery County who refused to issue appellant a license to carry a concealed weapon pursuant to the Pennsylvania Uniform Firearms Act, 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 6109 on the ground that appellant was not a "suitable person."

OVERVIEW: Appellee sheriff denied appellant's application for a license to carry a concealed weapon. The trial court found appellant pulled a gun from his holster, waved it about, and said that this is how he gets his work done. Appellant challenged the trial court's dismissal of his mandamus action in which he sought to compel appellee to issue a license. On appeal, the court found the legislature's intent in the Pennsylvania Uniform Firearms Act, 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 6109 was to make the issuance of a firearms license not mandatory, but discretionary. Appellee was empowered to exercise judgment in applying the statute's standards to decide if appellant should have been licensed. Because appellant had an adversarial hearing, focusing on his need and fitness for such a firearms license, appellant's constitutionally protected right to bear arms was not violated. The court also held that because the Pennsylvania Uniform Firearms Act, 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 6110 named certain persons, such as habitual drunkards, persons of unsound mind, and persons convicted of a crime of violence, ineligible to carry a firearm, the sheriff was not limited to denying firearms licenses only to such persons.

OUTCOME: The order was affirmed because appellee sheriff's denial of a firearms license to appellant was soundly based upon the need and suitability criteria of the Firearms Act.

[CZ40P]

Thank you HiredGoon
Maybe that explains why Delaware County thinks they are so special as to be exempt from the Uniform Firearms Act

[Damage control]

You can search the cases here pa-courts

Damage Control