Case shows Pa. sheriffs have too much say in gun permits

[larrymeyer]

http://www.examiner.com/a-1300024~La...ania_Headlines

Lawyer: Case shows Pa. sheriffs have too much say in gun permits

Filed under: PITTSBURGH , DAN NEPHIN , Concealed Weapons Permit
By DAN NEPHIN, AP

PITTSBURGH (Map, News) - A sheriff revoked a retired school teacher's firearm-carrying permit but under state law, doesn't have to specify why.

The man's lawyer and a gun rights group say what happened to Gary A. Young shows that sheriffs may have too much discretion deciding who can legally carry concealed guns.

"There is no record to justify the action of the sheriff of Crawford County except for the sheriff's own conclusionary letter based upon nothing that the court can consider except that it is one man's opinion," Young's attorney, J. Michael McCormick, wrote in court papers filed earlier this month.

In his Feb. 13 letter, Sheriff Walter C. Hoke told Young that he was revoking the permit because Young's "character and reputation is such that (he) would be likely to act in a manner dangerous to the public."


Examiner.com Related Articles:
Bush Sympathetic As War Toll Hits 4,000
Bush Sympathetic As War Toll Hits 4,000
Clinton Discusses Iraq With Young Vets
Puerto Rico Moves Up Primary
Hispanic Gov. Richardson Endorses Obama
Hoke, who took office this year, on Monday declined to specify why he took away Young's gun permit, but said he would not have revoked the permit without reason.

"We can only try to guess as to why the sheriff would do this," McCormick said. "My opinion is that that letter should have contained the sheriff's reason for revoking."

McCormick said Young was denied due process. A hearing is scheduled for April 24 in Crawford County Court, during which Hoke will have state his reason for revoking the permit.

McCormick said he's challenging Young's revocation and believes the firearms code is unconstitutionally vague.

Daniel Pehrson, the founder and president of the Pennsylvania Firearm Owners Association, told The Associated Press that "allowing any official to arbitrarily insert their own biases into the process is a situation that could become disastrous if used to deny people their right based not on their legal ability, but on other factors which are unrelated."

Young had the permit for seven years, but had to turn it in on Feb. 19. He was not required to surrender weapons, according to McCormick.

Young, 60, of Guys Mills, referred questions to McCormick. He is a retired school teacher and former Marine who fought and was injured by a grenade in Vietnam, McCormick said.

"He's led a very responsible life, and he's been quite a good citizen," McCormick said of Young.

Young disputes Hoke's characterization of him in court papers. Had Hoke investigated Young's character and reputation, he would have realized he wouldn't be likely to act dangerously, his appeal said.

Jim Hazen, executive director of the Pennsylvania Sheriff's Association, said the group doesn't track how often permits are revoked. Nor does the Pennsylvania State Police.

Hazen said he was aware of a similar case in Franklin County recently in which a man had his license revoked, but got it back on appeal.

Hazen said he didn't think any sheriff would revoke a permit arbitrarily.

"License to carry is a privilege, not a right," said Hazen, who likened the permit to a driver's license.

In 2006 in Pennsylvania, more than 102,000 people had permits to carry, according to state police. Numbers are not available for 2007.

[PAhunter]

Jim Hazen, executive director of the Pennsylvania Sheriff's Association, said the group doesn't track how often permits are revoked. Nor does the Pennsylvania State Police.

Hazen said he was aware of a similar case in Franklin County recently in which a man had his license revoked, but got it back on appeal.

Hazen said he didn't think any sheriff would revoke a permit arbitrarily.

"License to carry is a privilege, not a right," said Hazen, who likened the permit to a driver's license.

In 2006 in Pennsylvania, more than 102,000 people had permits to carry, according to state police. Numbers are not available for 2007.

Perhaps Mr. Hazen needs to reread this document.

CONSTITUTION
OF THE
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

WE, the people of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, and humbly invoking His guidance, do ordain and establish this Constitution.
Article 1

DECLARATION OF RIGHTS

Right to Bear Arms
Section 21.
The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

Emphasis added.

[larrymeyer]

Daniel Pehrson, the founder and president of the Pennsylvania Firearm Owners Association, told The Associated Press that "allowing any official to arbitrarily insert their own biases into the process is a situation that could become disastrous if used to deny people their right based not on their legal ability, but on other factors which are unrelated."

Great sentiment Dan I agree 100%

[Kenshin]

Perhaps Mr. Hazen needs to reread this document.

CONSTITUTION
OF THE
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

WE, the people of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, and humbly invoking His guidance, do ordain and establish this Constitution.
Article 1

DECLARATION OF RIGHTS

Right to Bear Arms
Section 21.
The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

Emphasis added.

Ill do one up on that.

[Mancolt]

Perhaps Mr. Hazen needs to reread this document.

CONSTITUTION
OF THE
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

WE, the people of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, and humbly invoking His guidance, do ordain and establish this Constitution.
Article 1

DECLARATION OF RIGHTS

Right to Bear Arms
Section 21.
The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

Emphasis added.

I came to this section to post exactly this...and see if anyone else was as upset about it as I. It's outrageous that a Mr. Hazen, the executive director of the Pennsylvania Sheriff's Association, has no clue about the PA constitution! Glad to see other people picked up on such a blatant lie in the article!

[tmg19103]

Bummer. I thought they were just doing this in the Philly area. As long as the Sheriff can use the "character and reputation" b.s., PA is not a shall issue state. The laws to recieve a LTCF should be the same as those to purchase and own a firearm.

What these Sheriff's also don't realize is they are costing the state a lot of revenue with these bogus denials. It's gotten to the point where you might as well not bother with a PA LTCF. Get FL, or UT or TX non-resident. A little more expensive, yes, but you are covered in far more states and your local Sheriff does not even know you have a CCW, so he can't pull your PA LTCF for no good reason as it appears with the guy in the artcle.

[theSaj]

And here is why...

Without the requirement of a specified reason, and an opportunity for arbitration (to defend yourself if accused), then we risk losing our rights.

They could simply send notices at random to a 1,000 LTCF permit holders a year. No stated reason necessary. If you don't turn in your LTCF then you find yourself in violation of the law. (In fact, they could claim to mail them out but no proof necessary. And then arrest you claiming they notified you and you failed to turn in your permit.) Such a campaign could be used to greatly reduce the number of permit holders.

Second, arbitration needs to be available. Otherwise, you could be a landlord who evicts a tenant and that tenant could simply state that you did x, y, or z. And you would lose your permit - without evidence or opportunity to defend yourself.

[gnbrotz]

And here is why...

Without the requirement of a specified reason, and an opportunity for arbitration (to defend yourself if accused), then we risk losing our rights.

They could simply send notices at random to a 1,000 LTCF permit holders a year. No stated reason necessary. If you don't turn in your LTCF then you find yourself in violation of the law. (In fact, they could claim to mail them out but no proof necessary. And then arrest you claiming they notified you and you failed to turn in your permit.) Such a campaign could be used to greatly reduce the number of permit holders.

Second, arbitration needs to be available. Otherwise, you could be a landlord who evicts a tenant and that tenant could simply state that you did x, y, or z. And you would lose your permit - without evidence or opportunity to defend yourself.

Above emphasis added by my. The statement in bold is not correct. §6109(i) states that "Notice shall be sent by certified mail". No signature pick-up of the mailing = no proof of proper notification = no grounds for arrest for failure to surrender license.

[theSaj]

Above emphasis added by my. The statement in bold is not correct. §6109(i) states that "Notice shall be sent by certified mail". No signature pick-up of the mailing = no proof of proper notification = no grounds for arrest for failure to surrender license.

The law says....but the law says many things. And us citizens often find ourselves at the mercy of the system.

Look what happened in New Orleans.... M-16's pointed at U.S. citizens. Breaking of hundreds of laws.

Look at Ruby Ridge....notice sent had wrong court date. *shrug*

[gnbrotz]

The law says....but the law says many things. And us citizens often find ourselves at the mercy of the system.

Look what happened in New Orleans.... M-16's pointed at U.S. citizens. Breaking of hundreds of laws.

Look at Ruby Ridge....notice sent had wrong court date. *shrug*

I agree. But LEOs ignoring the law is a very different situation than the law being completely silent on an issue. In this case, the law is very specific on what the notification requirements are.