LTCF Application

[Glyphic83]

With all due respect, I think you guys are too hard on the sheriff's office. These people, from my experience, are professional and very polite, and doing their jobs as best they know how.
The legality of the police check card is another issue. A clerk at a desk is not "sticking it to me" or screwing me in any way. They are doing their job as instructed by their supervision, and doing it well. I cannot fault desk clerks for a sheriff's lack of understanding of state law. They are, from my experience, simply trying to do the right thing. How can any of us as abiding gun owners fault them for that? We can call them ignorant, sure, but at the end of the day they do not make policy.
That said, if there is indeed a forum regarding educating our local sheriff on proper PA law, my thanks goes to anyone who can point me to it.

[Glyphic83]

Above should have said "...as law abiding gun owners...". Forgive my lack of typing prowess. Working with a heavily modded (and therefore buggy) Android tablet at the moment

[IronSight]

While I do see and agree with your point (and others) regarding the lack of a requirement for the local PD check, I personally believe there are bigger fish to fry (e.g. a president who supports a ban on concealed carry) and this particular issue isn't worth my time. Sometimes you have to pick your battles, ya know?

If I believed as you do, we wouldn't be near 100% compliance on the correct fee for licenses as we are now.

With all due respect, I think you guys are too hard on the sheriff's office. These people, from my experience, are professional and very polite, and doing their jobs as best they know how.
The legality of the police check card is another issue. A clerk at a desk is not "sticking it to me" or screwing me in any way. They are doing their job as instructed by their supervision, and doing it well. I cannot fault desk clerks for a sheriff's lack of understanding of state law. They are, from my experience, simply trying to do the right thing. How can any of us as abiding gun owners fault them for that? We can call them ignorant, sure, but at the end of the day they do not make policy.
That said, if there is indeed a forum regarding educating our local sheriff on proper PA law, my thanks goes to anyone who can point me to it.

I don't hold back on government officials exercising authority that they don't have while infringing further beyond what the law states on a fundamental right. It is a problem if the people handling LTCF applications don't know the law, and it is a even bigger problem when local police departments ignore the law and help aid and abet such actions.

The law is abundantly clear, there is supposed to be one application form for a license to carry, there is supposed to be one uniform standard for the license, and there is supposed to be one standard fee for the process. Montgomery County needs to get stop putting extra roadblocks in the way of the right for law abiding gun owners to carry, and the citizens of Montgomery County need to wake up and realize what's going on.

You might not think it's a big deal, but statewide this was and is still is a huge problem. Your Sheriff ran you through hoops the law never intended you to jump through, and convinced you in the process that the oppression was pleasant.

You're new to this forum, so don't take it as if I'm singling you out, but I absolutely get sick when new members come on here and rave about government officials that are quietly screwing them over behind closed doors.

[Glyphic83]

Ironsight,
Agreed. While I stand by my point that the fight is not worth taking up with the clerks sitting at the desk, I do 100% agree with your point that the sheriff is not in accordance with state law. Are you a resident of Montgomery county? If so, any ideas on how to address this with the sheriff?
Or if anyone else has ideas, I am all ears...barring suggestions on telling them to "shove it" as I believe this undermines the intelligence and debating capability of all legal PA firearm owners. We are better than that and should articulate our arguments as such

[IronSight]

Ironsight,
Agreed. While I stand by my point that the fight is not worth taking up with the clerks sitting at the desk, I do 100% agree with your point that the sheriff is not in accordance with state law. Are you a resident of Montgomery county? If so, any ideas on how to address this with the sheriff?
Or if anyone else has ideas, I am all ears...barring suggestions on telling them to "shove it" as I believe this undermines the intelligence and debating capability of all legal PA firearm owners. We are better than that and should articulate our arguments as such

I live in Lehigh County. I got involved in licensing issues after I realized that over a third of all counties were charging more for license than allowed by law. Working with my State Representative, and FOAC, the rate of compliance on fees is now drastically improved. Other issues like this police check card, and reference requirements, are still being worked on.

I'm working on the drafts of a couple things right now for both this issue and the issue regarding references (try searching the law for a requirement for references, you won't find it).

I am set to have both of those done by the end of this week, and I'll make the gameplan known here on PAFOA shortly thereafter.

[Glyphic83]

Ironsight,
Allow me to play devil' advocate for a minutes. PA firearm owners argue, when confronted by police, that PA is an open carry state, correct? And the crux of said argument is that state law says nothing regarding a requirement that firearms be concealed, correct?
If our argument is that state law does not specify a firearm be concealed, how can we advocae that the requirement for references be removed based on the fact that state law doesn't specifically state that references are not required?
Does this not contradict our own arguments regarding open vs concealed carry?

[mpan72]

You should have slapped down a copy of the statute governing LTCF process and then had those assclowns show you the section that mentions "police check cards." After a few seconds, you might have hinted to them that it wasn't part of the fucking statute, but that "you not getting to make up bullshit hoops for me to jump through" certainly was. Sorry to rain on your LTCF, but the Sheriff stuck it to you and convinced you that it was well done.

I agree 100%.
Sometimes people don't know they are getting screwed.

"Thank you sir, may I have another".

[mpan72]

Ironsight,
Allow me to play devil' advocate for a minutes. PA firearm owners argue, when confronted by police, that PA is an open carry state, correct? And the crux of said argument is that state law says nothing regarding a requirement that firearms be concealed, correct?
If our argument is that state law does not specify a firearm be concealed, how can we advocae that the requirement for references be removed based on the fact that state law doesn't specifically state that references are not required?
Does this not contradict our own arguments regarding open vs concealed carry?

I don't know if I am understanding your point correctly. For open carry you don't need an LTCF with some exceptions.

[IronSight]

Ironsight,
Allow me to play devil' advocate for a minutes. PA firearm owners argue, when confronted by police, that PA is an open carry state, correct? And the crux of said argument is that state law says nothing regarding a requirement that firearms be concealed, correct?
If our argument is that state law does not specify a firearm be concealed, how can we advocae that the requirement for references be removed based on the fact that state law doesn't specifically state that references are not required?
Does this not contradict our own arguments regarding open vs concealed carry?

Government acts with the authority it is granted, and agencies within the government act within the authority the legislative bodies give them. We on the other hand have the freedom to act unless that conduct is specifically illegal (and the law making it such is not overturned as unconstitutional).

The PSP was given no authority to add requirements onto the application process, which they did with the reference "requirement". They are not a legislative body and do not write the laws of this State.

I'll also go ahead and quote myself here rather than re-type this;

That "requirement" was added into the process by bureaucrats with no legislative powers, not the members of the General Assembly.

According to 18 Pa.C.S. § 6109, subsection (g) "the sheriff shall, within 45 days, issue or refuse to issue a license on the basis of the investigation under subsection (d) and the accuracy of the information contained in the application." Furthermore, subsection (e) binds the issuing authority to issue the license "if, after an investigation not to exceed 45 days, it appears that the applicant is an individual concerning whom no good cause exists to deny the license." The issuing authority is bound by subsection (c) to "use only the application form prescribed by the Pennsylvania State Police." I see no authority for any separate forms, none whatsoever.

Subsection (d) imposes no duty upon the applicant to help the issuing authority with the investigation.

Now, 037 Pa. Code § 33.114 states, "It is the responsibility of the issuing authority to utilize the form as prescribed by the State Police, and ensure it is accurately completed in accordance with the block instructions contained therein." Here's the kicker though, this text from 18 Pa.C.S. § 6109 (c): "I authorize the sheriff, or his designee, or, in the case of first class cities, the chief or head of the police department, or his designee, to inspect only those records or documents relevant to information required for this application." (emphasis added).

Where is the authorization, anywhere under law, either from the applicant or the General Assembly to have the issuing authority contact two members of the general public about an application that is explicitly private and confidential? Page two of the application even states that "All Information supplied, Including your social security number, is confidential and not subject to public disclosure." Furthermore 18 Pa.C.S. § 6111 subsection (i) provides that "All information provided by ... any applicant for a license to carry a firearm as provided by section 6109 shall be confidential and not subject to public disclosure."

[Glyphic83]

Government acts with the authority it is granted, and agencies within the government act within the authority the legislative bodies give them. We on the other hand have the freedom to act unless that conduct is specifically illegal (and the law making it such is not overturned as unconstitutional).

The PSP was given no authority to add requirements onto the application process, which they did with the reference "requirement". They are not a legislative body and do not write the laws of this State.

A quite perfect counter, Ironsight.