Thinking About Challenging Police Check

[bac0nfat]

Right, but the part you quoted is just one of the requirements, and the sheriff must fulfill all of them. Specifically, the third one. I see what you are saying about who fills out the form, but if we get what we want and require the sheriff to do the footwork, won't that just make the process take longer? Seems like taking one step forward and two steps back.

[Remington788]

Just playing devils advocate here, but is it possible that they use 18 Pa.C.S. § 6109(d) to justify the police check card?



They could argue that it is just part of the investigation process, right?

I think that is what the Sheriff said in the email response to OldSchool's question.

The Police Card –
This is a reasonable way for our office to conduct your investigation. This is a means to ask the applicant to help expedite the investigation and issue the
permit in a short time period. If our office has to do investigations on every permit application, it will delay issuance of the permits.
The Police check allows us to expedite the process. We will not issue the permit without an investigation, which may take several days.
We have up to 45 days to complete the investigations.
When an applicant comes to the office with the police card, in most cases, we are able to issue a card in a shirt time period that day.

I'm not sure that the process in Montco could get much smoother. Yes, I realize that in some of the more rural counties in the Commonwealth, you can walk into the Sheriff off the street and walk out with your LTCF. Montco is a little more populated and larger (it is 3rd behind Allegheny and Philadelphia) so things will never be a easy as that.

Compare the Montco process to that of its neighbors, the 5-county Phila area;Philadelphia, Bucks, Delaware, Chester and Montgomery. Which one is easiest and fastest?

[ByblosHex]

Right, but the part you quoted is just one of the requirements, and the sheriff must fulfill all of them. Specifically, the third one. I see what you are saying about who fills out the form, but if we get what we want and require the sheriff to do the footwork, won't that just make the process take longer? Seems like taking one step forward and two steps back.

I already said that it doesn't bother me personally. Since it is same day LTCF approval and I quote myself...

I think the reason no-one challenges is it because no-one is really too bothered by same-day LTCF. Bucks county follows the letter of the law for the LTCF, but I waited a week for mine. AHenshaw got hers in Montgomery county and she did need to stop at the local PD for the check card, but she also got her LTCF the same day. I'm not saying it's right, but it's pretty damned convenient.

However, the person I quoted and responded to directly specifically asked "but what is really the issue here?" and implied they must therefor "do something wrong that would prohibit getting the card" and then followed up with the statements "Slow down, take a breath, and let the system work for you. After all, you could live in NJ and NEVER get a carry permit!". Don't take my post out of it's context and apply it where it doesn't apply.
Second off, that is one of the requirements. However, all of the requirements are required of the Sheriff, not the applicant.

I think that is what the Sheriff said in the email response to OldSchool's question.
I'm not sure that the process in Montco could get much smoother. Yes, I realize that in some of the more rural counties in the Commonwealth, you can walk into the Sheriff off the street and walk out with your LTCF. Montco is a little more populated and larger (it is 3rd behind Allegheny and Philadelphia) so things will never be a easy as that.
Compare the Montco process to that of its neighbors, the 5-county Phila area;Philadelphia, Bucks, Delaware, Chester and Montgomery. Which one is easiest and fastest?

Despite the method's obvious benefits it isn't according to the law (I'm not a lawyer) and that's the primary point of contention. Additionally, the email is dishonest. The Police Check card is absolutely not asked, it's required and it's an illegal requirement. Also, there's no possible way that requiring the Sheriff's department to perform their own PICS check would make the approval take any longer. They already take as much time as and possibly do a PICS check anyway.

[IronSight]

Maybe I am missing something, but what is really the issue here? Are people so impatient to have their Local PD do the card check? Did you do something wrong that would prohibit getting the card and are trying to get the permit by other means?

As stated the issue is state law, the fact that the check is pointless because of the law. The PICS check will tell a sheriff if someone is prohibited, the local police check is redundant, wasteful, and unecessary.

I downloaded all the paper work and printed it out. Dropped the sheet off at my local PD, no questions asked. Picked it up a few days later, drove it right over to the Sheriffs Office and had my permit in hand in less than a half-hour.

Unlike others who've had the check card take weeks to months, been railroaded by local PD officers with their own agenda, etc.

If you (OP) are not even 21 yet, what is the rush? Get the paper work all completed and ready to go, drop it off a day or 2 before your birthday at your local PD, maybe strike up a nice conversation with the desk jockey so they remember you as a good guy and you 'should' be on your way without issue.

Slow down, take a breath, and let the system work for you. After all, you could live in NJ and NEVER get a carry permit!

Or you could live in a county that follows state law by working to make your county one of them. We don't live in NJ and shouldn't, in my opinion, be so accepting of officials that bully citizens and ignore State law.

...

Also, other counties have demonstrated that following the law and having the sheriff ofice do their job is quicker, easier, and best of all, legal.

[GunLawyer001]

The system? The problem?

The problem is that this is not the system. The problem is that the Sheriff's Department is in violation of state law and is not being held accountable. Be grateful we're not in NJ? Is that your understanding of "The right of the citizens to bear arms shall not be questioned?" It isn't a question of patience or being better than NJ, it's a question of a Sheriff's department ignoring the law and not being held accountable.

I think that I see both sides of this issue.

On the one hand, we have state law that provides for a single, PSP-created "uniform" Application form, the one that "shall"" be used and no other form, while in practice the various sheriffs and especially the Philly PPD seem unfettered in using additional forms and supplement approvals.

We have explicit state-created statutory requirements and prohibitors, and the local authorities are preempted from adding to or ignoring them. Your Sheriff can no more add "must have lived here for 6 months and have 3 unrelated friends living in this county" than he/she could unilaterally decide that just 1 felony conviction isn't necessarily going to keep you from getting your LTCF. Every one of these new, local requirements is in effect an addition to the Uniform Firearms Act, a new paragraph that says you are ineligible for a license if you fail to jump through an arbitrary hoop.

The police check card is in principle very much like the CLEO signature requirement in the NFA, where one agency will refuse to approve you if some other agency fails to play ball. They get the citizen caught in the middle, without recourse.

These requirements are burdensome. Requiring that you make at least 2 trips to the issuer during business hours is a deal-breaker to people trying to hold down jobs. Adding in another trip to the local police can be a hassle. Some of these limited hours/multiple trips rules seem designed solely to discourage some portion of the citizenry, like putting every RedBox machine at the top of a 6 foot ladder (sure, it would still allow some business, but you just know that some percentage of potential customers would give up on it.)

On the other hand, the issuing authority DOES have a statutory duty to conduct an investigation, and this must mean more than just a PICS check, or else the statute would say "get approval from the PSP". The issuer has to rely on info that you supply, and their argument would be that the mandated form doesn't include enough, since it only asks for your name, address, date of birth, employer, and other identifiers.

That's the hook they use to justify personal interviews on their schedule. They need your input to carry out the duty to investigate. And some of the burdens are very marginal, so minimal that the majority of applicants get over them without undue trouble.

On balance, I think the govt has a high burden in justifying ANY burden it imposes on a class of citizens. Sitting at the back of the bus still gets you to the same place in the same time, right? But we find it unconscionable when the govt picks a group and treats them like second-class citizens who should just be damn grateful that we let them ride the bus at all.

If I were a judge, I'd disallow the police check card, and tell the issuing authority to do their own investigation, like the statute requires. I'd smash down any arbitrary requirements of where your friends live, or how long you must be a resident of the county before you're able to exercise your rights (BTW, courts have struck down residency requirement for receiving Welfare, which is hardly a right protected by the Constitution the way gun rights are enumerated rights.)

But I really don't see a 2 year court battle and $50K in legal fees (minimum) with the goal of eliminating the police check card. There are bigger fish to fry.

[Remington788]

I already said that it doesn't bother me personally. Since it is same day LTCF approval and I quote myself...

However, the person I quoted and responded to directly specifically asked "but what is really the issue here?" and implied they must therefor "do something wrong that would prohibit getting the card" and then followed up with the statements "Slow down, take a breath, and let the system work for you. After all, you could live in NJ and NEVER get a carry permit!". Don't take my post out of it's context and apply it where it doesn't apply.
Second off, that is one of the requirements. However, all of the requirements are required of the Sheriff, not the applicant.


Despite the method's obvious benefits it isn't according to the law (I'm not a lawyer) and that's the primary point of contention. Additionally, the email is dishonest. The Police Check card is absolutely not asked, it's required and it's an illegal requirement.

I hear you, but I'd rather the applicant do the legwork than have the Sheriff's office hire a clerk to do it. This County budget is already tight.

[ByblosHex]

I think that I see both sides of this issue.

On the one hand, we have state law that provides for a single, PSP-created "uniform" Application form, the one that "shall"" be used and no other form, while in practice the various sheriffs and especially the Philly PPD seem unfettered in using additional forms and supplement approvals.

We have explicit state-created statutory requirements and prohibitors, and the local authorities are preempted from adding to or ignoring them. Your Sheriff can no more add "must have lived here for 6 months and have 3 unrelated friends living in this county" than he/she could unilaterally decide that just 1 felony conviction isn't necessarily going to keep you from getting your LTCF. Every one of these new, local requirements is in effect an addition to the Uniform Firearms Act, a new paragraph that says you are ineligible for a license if you fail to jump through an arbitrary hoop.

The police check card is in principle very much like the CLEO signature requirement in the NFA, where one agency will refuse to approve you if some other agency fails to play ball. They get the citizen caught in the middle, without recourse.

These requirements are burdensome. Requiring that you make at least 2 trips to the issuer during business hours is a deal-breaker to people trying to hold down jobs. Adding in another trip to the local police can be a hassle. Some of these limited hours/multiple trips rules seem designed solely to discourage some portion of the citizenry, like putting every RedBox machine at the top of a 6 foot ladder (sure, it would still allow some business, but you just know that some percentage of potential customers would give up on it.)

On the other hand, the issuing authority DOES have a statutory duty to conduct an investigation, and this must mean more than just a PICS check, or else the statute would say "get approval from the PSP". The issuer has to rely on info that you supply, and their argument would be that the mandated form doesn't include enough, since it only asks for your name, address, date of birth, employer, and other identifiers.

That's the hook they use to justify personal interviews on their schedule. They need your input to carry out the duty to investigate. And some of the burdens are very marginal, so minimal that the majority of applicants get over them without undue trouble.

On balance, I think the govt has a high burden in justifying ANY burden it imposes on a class of citizens. Sitting at the back of the bus still gets you to the same place in the same time, right? But we find it unconscionable when the govt picks a group and treats them like second-class citizens who should just be damn grateful that we let them ride the bus at all.

If I were a judge, I'd disallow the police check card, and tell the issuing authority to do their own investigation, like the statute requires. I'd smash down any arbitrary requirements of where your friends live, or how long you must be a resident of the county before you're able to exercise your rights (BTW, courts have struck down residency requirement for receiving Welfare, which is hardly a right protected by the Constitution the way gun rights are enumerated rights.)

But I really don't see a 2 year court battle and $50K in legal fees (minimum) with the goal of eliminating the police check card. There are bigger fish to fry.

and I think you for your expert legal advice. I can't believe how quickly you formulated and articulated that response.

I hear you, but I'd rather the applicant do the legwork than have the Sheriff's office hire a clerk to do it. This County budget is already tight.

The same person who looks at the Police Check card and issues the LTCF could have spent as much time calling your local PD and asking them if you're a known trouble-maker. That's all the Police check card even asks.

[GunLawyer001]

Since a forum member requested that I post this, here is the E-mail correspondence to date. These are in reverse chronological order, by default:

Subject:
RE: Sheriff's Questions
From:
<support@oldschoolpc.net> (Remove Preferred Sender)
Date: Thu, Apr 05, 2012 6:06 pm
To: "Behr, Eileen Whalon" <EBehr@montcopa.org>

Thank you for your E-mail Sheriff Behr. I very much appreciate your time in this matter. I am glad to hear that this is an issue that you are personally looking into. I hope that when I submit my application, that the process will be smooth. I also hope that the process will be smooth for other applicants in the future. I have a very simple suggestion as to the matter that I believe will be beneficial to both applicant, and the Sheriff's Department. Instead of stating that you "require" XYZ information, simply state that you "strongly suggest" that such information is provided to help "expedite" the process. Advise potential applicants that by providing such information, they can "potentially" receive their license much quicker. If they do not, it may delay the processing up to the full 45 days allowed. In this way, the burden on the Sheriff's Office is lighter to all those who choose to provide the information that I previously objected to. For those that do not, the Sheriff's Office still has a full 45 days to do the investigation. This information can be displayed on the Sheriff's Office website, and in the Sheriff's Office. Once again, I very much appreciate your personal involvement in this matter.

P.S. Items "2" and "3" on the following hyperlink I feel should be changed to "we suggest" type dialogue. Also, perhaps remove the "cannot be processed" sentence as well. Thank you kindly, Sheriff Behr.
http://sheriff.montcopa.org/sheriff/...av,|34342|.asp

- Mr. Dennison

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Sheriff's Questions
From: "Behr, Eileen Whalon" <EBehr@montcopa.org>
Date: Thu, April 05, 2012 4:18 pm
To: <support@oldschoolpc.net>

Mr / Ms Dennison,
I am in receipt of your message. I appreciate your concerns and questions.
I am reviewing our policy with our solicitor.

In reference to some concerns:
PSP Form -
There is nothing wrong with the PSP form that requests information on references. That information is helpful in doing the investigation required by the Sheriff.
PSP advised that it is up to the Sheriff to require the information.
Not having the information may delay our investigation and delay acquiring the permit.

The Police Card –
This is a reasonable way for our office to conduct your investigation. This is a means to ask the applicant to help expedite the investigation and issue the
permit in a short time period. If our office has to do investigations on every permit application, it will delay issuance of the permits.
The Police check allows us to expedite the process. We will not issue the permit without an investigation, which may take several days.
We have up to 45 days to complete the investigations.
When an applicant comes to the office with the police card, in most cases, we are able to issue a card in a shirt time period that day.
You may submit your application and we will determine if there is enough information to process your Application.

Note: I do apologize for the opening of this letter, but I had only the name "Dennison" and was not sure if I should use "Mr" or "Ms" -
again I do apologize.

Sheriff Behr

Sheriff Eileen Whalon Behr
Montgomery County
Courthouse - 1st Floor · P.O. Box 311
Norristown, PA 19404-0311
Phone: 610-278-3337 · Fax: 610-278-3832
Email: ebehr@montcopa.org
http://sheriff.montcopa.org


\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

Subject:
RE: LTCF Appication
From:
<support@oldschoolpc.net> (Remove Preferred Sender)
Date: Tue, Apr 03, 2012 6:03 pm
To: "SheriffOffice" <sheriffoffice@montcopa.org>

I thank the Montgomery County Sheriff's office for it's time in responding to my E-mail. Thank you for clarifying my ignorance as to the $1 fee. As for the police check sheet, nowhere in the UFA does it mention that the applicant must furnish such information from local police to the sheriff's office. The sheriff's office, can/may/should investigate. However, that does not mean that an applicant has to go to their local police station (or state police). If you look at 18 Pa.C.S. § 6109 (c), it clearly says: The form may contain provisions, not exceeding one page, to assure compliance with this section." Requiring an additional piece of paper is not in accordance with the UFA. Furthermore, nowhere in the UFA does it state that an application can be denied for failing to offer references. It is not the responsibility of the applicant to "prove" that they are a responsible person. Our fine state is a "shall issue" state, not a "may issue" state in regards to LTCF. "A license to carry a firearm shall be for the purpose of carrying a firearm concealed on or about one's person or in a vehicle and shall be issued 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." Neither the sheriff's department policies/procedures, nor local or state police police/procedures, can supersede the law. I do acknowledge, that the form prescribed by the PA State Police must be used as mentioned in the UFA. However, that does not mean that the 2 references are truly required. It was errant on the State Police to have that included, or otherwise for the Sheriff's Office to interpret it's inclusion as "required". While I do have character and job references that could be used, I prefer not to give out anybody else's information, which is my prerogative. Let's assume the following:

1. I completely fill out the LTCF application. (minus the references)
2. I do not fill out "local police check"
3. I pass the PICS test and/or other criminal background test
4. No significant cause is found against me such as being a danger to myself or others.

Assuming those things, am I to understand that the Montgomery County Sheriff's office with either deny, or otherwise not process my application?

- Dennison


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: LTCF Appication
From: "SheriffOffice" <sheriffoffice@montcopa.org>
Date: Tue, April 03, 2012 4:29 pm
To: "Old School PC Services" <support@oldschoolpc.net>

Attached is the most up-to-date application form, which was provided to us by the Pennsylvania State Police. You will note that it requires two references. This form appears on our website and is distributed by our office.

The additional $1.00 is the Validation Surcharge enacted by the Pennsylvania Legislature under Act 66 of 2005. You will find this provision here:

18 Pa.C.S. § 6109 (h)(3)
(3) An additional fee of $1 shall be paid by the applicant for a license to carry a firearm and shall be remitted by the sheriff to the Firearms License Validation System Account, which is hereby established as a special restricted receipt account within the General Fund of the State Treasury. The account shall be used for purposes under subsection (l). Moneys credited to the account and any investment income accrued are hereby appropriated on a continuing basis to the Pennsylvania State Police.
Finally, the local police check (this form is also attached) is required by our office as part of the investigation we conduct under 18 Pa.C.S. § 6109 (d). This form is to be filled out by the applicant's local police department or by the Pennsylvania State Police if the applicant's municipality does not have a police department.

-- Jim
From: Old School PC Services [mailto:support@oldschoolpc.net]
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2012 6:40 AM
To: SheriffOffice
Subject: LTCF Appication



I interested in acquiring an LTCF, however it appears that the Montgomery County Sheriff's department form is illegal. If you read the Pennsylvania Uniform Firearms act, it expressly details everything related to how sheriff's departments must process applications. Requiring the following information is illegal.

Requiring a fee over $19 (you charge $20)
Requiring 2 references
Requiring a local police check

Below is some portions of the UFA. Therefore, I would like to submit a legal LTCF application. Can you supply me with one to be filled out?

- Dennison

. . . .

I have to commend Sheriff Behr for her courtesy and restraint in that dialogue. It's a very positive sign that she treats evil gun owners like the sovereign citizens that we are.

For future reference, it's courteous to supply your full name and contact info, like a phone number. She was being subtle in pointing out that omission. She was being civil and polite and respectful, I think she deserves that in return. This is business correspondence, not texting about weekend plans, and if you really want to focus on your goals, then it will pay you dividends to avoid distractions about excess informality and unmerited presumption. How much weight would you give to a semi-anonymous email suggesting that you never cut your lawn on Sunday, or that you leave for work 10 minutes earlier?

[bac0nfat]

...

Gotcha.

10 char

[Remington788]

The same person who looks at the Police Check card and issues the LTCF could have spent as much time calling your local PD and asking them if you're a known trouble-maker. That's all the Police check card even asks.

That person (a paid sheriff's deputy) is already processing your paperwork and making the PICS call as you wait. What happens then if he calls your local PD and no one is available to look you up. Do you sit and wait? Go home and wait for the deputy to play phone tag with the PD?

This hardly seems efficient.