Should we call Pennsylvania Shall Issue or May Issue?

[IronSight]

Here's an interesting question for everyone, feel free to provide your thoughts.

Should we call Pennsylvania Shall Issue?

We have a long and unfortunately current history of abuses of the issuing agents, including the numerous requirements imposed by them which have and will continue to bar residents, and especially non-residents, from applying and obtaining licenses. Then we have undefined and seemingly near limitless discretion used by some Sheriffs and the PPD to deny/revoke under the character clause. Also on top of that we have the decisions over rules and regulations on the licensing process by government agencies and in secret meetings of committees that have barred would-be applicants from becoming licensees, it seems like a fair question.

There's no penalty for issuing agents to simply refuse to accept applications under the sad excuse that applicants don't abide by their arbitrary rules, there's been no penalty on issuing agents that improperly abuse the character and reputation clause (with the extremely rare exception), and there's no penalty on Sheriffs that refuse to accept non-resident applications. We've seen threads here about improper refusals of applications and unjust denials and revocations upheld by rubber-stamping review boards and lax judges, and we know that residents of other States have suddenly taken notice of the new "in-person applications only" requirement implemented thanks to the input of a previously secret committee meeting in violation of the Sunshine Act, so should we call Pennsylvania shall issue?

I'd at least say this, for non-residents we should stop referring to Pennsylvania as shall issue, excepting certain counties, but it seems for some counties we have to remove the shall issue label for residents as well. If we have to selectively say well these counties are shall issue but these others are may issue, are we honestly a shall issue state?

[knight0334]

Legally PA is shall issue to both, resident and nonresident. However many counties aren't practicing that with nonresidents.

There needs to be some penalty added into law for those counties. ..well, we should actual go Constitutional Carry with the license as option - but still SHALL issue for everyone.

[bac0nfat]

May issue, because of the character clause. It gives too much discretionary power to the counties. Philadelphia might be the only one that abuses it, but the clause is there for anyone to abuse, NOT just Philadelphia.

[customloaded]

I say "May Issue" because so many counties do as they wish with both residents and non-residents as it pertains to added qualifications per the whim of the Sheriff.
This includes:
Background check cards by local PD
In county references
inaccurate information given with application/LTCF
making up other non-legally binding qualifications

CL

[BimmerJon]

May issue, because of the character clause. It gives too much discretionary power to the counties. Philadelphia might be the only one that abuses it, but the clause is there for anyone to abuse, NOT just Philadelphia.

agreed......
And we also need more teeth in state preemption with harsh penalties to those that violate it.

[kadar]

Striking part of 6109(b) would help solve these problems.

(b) Place of application.--An individual who is 21 years of age or older may apply to a sheriff for a license to carry a firearm concealed on or about his person or in a vehicle within this Commonwealth. If the applicant is a resident of this Commonwealth, he shall make application with the sheriff of the county in which he resides or, if a resident of a city of the first class, with the chief of police of that city.

[DonM55]

The state is shall issue. However many counties are may issue.

[MDJschool]

For the purposes of making a map, PA should probably be marked may issue when the granularity is no further than state-level.

Otherwise, PA is de jure shall issue to both residents and nonresidents in 67 of 67 counties, but for residents of the county of Philadelphia who are also residents of the city of city of Philadelphia and who apply to the city chief of police. As for those city-residents of Philadelphia, I'm not exactly sure what to call it.

However when we start looking at some cases and some legislative records, the idea of shall issue starts wavering, even though the phrase 'shall . . . issue . . . unless' occurs right in the statute. Of course, this is especially potent related to 6109(e)(1)(i). For example, one of the major facilitating legislators had actually made a claim that (e)(1)(i) was left in to appease the PA Sheriff's Association to make them feel like they had some discretion. And the courts don't bother to actually do any statutory construction when they're called upon to construe a statute (if it feels bad, it is bad, is the rule of thumb in these proceedings.)

PA is de facto may issue if any jurisdiction is ultimately practicing may issue (and so many seem to be, unless we'll be so bold to say that as long as we follow the special instructions of each political subdivision, it is shall issue), because shall issue is a matter of certainty for which may issue can never provide. A de jure may issue would be a de facto shall issue if that is how it were carried out. PA definitely does not deserve the shall issue badge at this time, if it is a matter of gloating. However, if it is a matter of political posturing, it's hard to say how to brand PA to get PA, or other states, to shall issue in the future.

[MDJschool]

Then we have undefined and seemingly near limitless discretion used by some Sheriffs

How many cases are you aware of where someone has made an appropriate statutory construction argument on 6109(e)(1)(i)? Can you point us to the filings of the appellant, the transcripts, and the opinion of the court? I would like to see where this has failed. I would personally like to see it fail many times (or, preferably, succeed) because that means people are actually seeking redress per Pa. Const. art. I, secs. 11 and 20. I don't believe any such attempts are being made, at least by anyone with connections to anyone on PAFOA who cares to bring it to our attention.

There's no penalty for issuing agents to simply refuse to accept applications under the sad excuse that applicants don't abide by their arbitrary rules, there's been no penalty on issuing agents that improperly abuse the character and reputation clause (with the extremely rare exception), and there's no penalty on Sheriffs that refuse to accept non-resident applications.

How many of these people subject to misfeasance, misfeasance, or malfeasance has ever attempted to do anything about it? Yes, there is a penalty, at the very least for nonfeasance, under 16 P.S. 411 and 3411 (depending on county class). I am aware of 0 examples of criminal complaints filed under these sections. Further, ambitious persons can pursue the rest of the misbehavior in office with a little bit of research and legwork... but they simply have not done so. There are penalties...at least they presume to exist. Due process means someone has to do some leg work, even if some public officials oaths won't arse them to start the process themselves.

Whether its that we don't have officials who keep the others in line, or that we do nothing ourselves to prompt action, the disease is much the same for which these things are only symptoms. Let's start filing complaints and appealing their denials, and then complain how there are no penalties.

[God's Country]

Until the character clause is removed, or Pa goes the way of constitutional carry (which I believe will effectively accomplish the same goal) we are a may issue state. Until the burden of non prohibited persons (financial and otherwise) has been lifted and placed on the shoulders of the state, which is where it belongs, we are a may issue state.