Is this a reason to revoke LTCf in PA?

[PAGLOCK23]

If you are charge with public drunkeness and disorderly conduct can your LTCF be revoked? Not me mind you.

[gnbrotz]

Those specific charges/convictions are not stand-alone grounds for a LTCF revocation, however, in this situation, Sheriff's will likely cite §6109(e)(1)(i) - the 'character clause' - and put the burden on the revokee to appeal the revocation in court.

[soberbyker]

I agree with gnbrotz and I'll add that when the DELCO Sheriff contacted my references (and employer) the questions he asked them centered on me being a drunk and/or violent.

Drinking related charges and disorderly conduct charges (which could be construed as violent) could be a reason for denial, it would appear, so I'd imagine they could use those same charges to revoke a LTCF.

Bill
.

[PAGLOCK23]

Thanks for the quick replies guys. I'll pass this info on to the offending person. Just a wealth of info on here.

[ALS]

Remember this is just my opinion, If you being drunk and stupid and you DO NOT have a gun on you or with in easy access then I don't think it is a big deal. You are carrying and are being drunk and disorderly then yes I would revoke your right to carry a concealed weapon.

[pex]

Remember this is just my opinion, If you being drunk and stupid and you DO NOT have a gun on you or with in easy access then I don't think it is a big deal. You are carrying and are being drunk and disorderly then yes I would revoke your right to carry a concealed weapon.

Please never become sheriff.

[GunLawyer001]

Please never become sheriff.

Nah, I'd vote for him. I don't have a bumper sticker that says "DRUNKS HAVE THE RIGHT TO CARRY GUNS".

I'd agree that someone who had the foresight to leave his gun home that night, before he decided to drink until Rosie O'Donnel looked good, shouldn't have his LTCF revoked, because at least he showed good judgment on the relevant issue of the firearm. But carrying a gun does carry with it enhanced responsibilities, like not picking fights that could lead to the need to draw your weapon, not defending yourself by shooting at the perp 50 feet away while hundreds of shoppers form the backstop, and not getting sloppy drunk such that you're unable to exercise good judgment or retain control of your weapon.

If you're armed and get really sloppy drunk, not just the .08 or whatever the current PC fad is for deciding how much alcohol the theoretical person should have while driving, then you forfeit your right to carry a concealed weapon, same as if you were armed and were caught committing other crimes.

I know that the absolutists here will get uppity, but rights come with responsibilities. Don't shirk your responsibilities, and I'll back you up 100% on your rights, but it's a 2-way street.

[gnbrotz]

I'll try not to get to 'uppity' in my response.

I would personally have less of an issue with a person who (while carrying) got "sloppy drunk" and involved in a fistfight than someone who was stone cold sober and thought it would be appropriate to draw over a simple dispute - say a parking spot for example. That being said, a pattern of the first scenario, could easily constitute being a "habitual drunkard", which is grounds enough for a denial or revocation regardless of the actual 'use' of a firearm in any dust-up.

I think playing this "what could it lead to?" game is a slippery slope. Penalize me (or others) for what I did, not what I might have done.

Lastly, that's not to say that I would personally expend alot of personal time and effort working on behalf of someone in such a situation, just that I would not summarily declare their rights non-existent should they wish to fight the fight on their own.

[tes151]

If you are charge with public drunkeness and disorderly conduct can your LTCF be revoked? Not me mind you.

Being charged with and being convicted of are two different things. If not convicted, then legally no crime was committed. That would probably not stop a sherrif with a " god complex " from using the character thing against your friend though. That is the reason some changes need to be made to the law.

[GunLawyer001]

I'll try not to get to 'uppity' in my response.

I would personally have less of an issue with a person who (while carrying) got "sloppy drunk" and involved in a fistfight than someone who was stone cold sober and thought it would be appropriate to draw over a simple dispute - say a parking spot for example. That being said, a pattern of the first scenario, could easily constitute being a "habitual drunkard", which is grounds enough for a denial or revocation regardless of the actual 'use' of a firearm in any dust-up.

I think playing this "what could it lead to?" game is a slippery slope. Penalize me (or others) for what I did, not what I might have done.

Lastly, that's not to say that I would personally expend alot of personal time and effort working on behalf of someone in such a situation, just that I would not summarily declare their rights non-existent should they wish to fight the fight on their own.

Hardly uppity at all, but that's what we've come to expect from you, well-reasoned arguments, not waving the bloody flag and exhortations to storm the Bastille.

I think that we are essentially in agreement, that being a drunk with a gun is grounds for making you a drunk without a gun, at least without one concealed on or about your person. Being only "technically" intoxicated, where a blood alcohol test is required to make the call because there was no weaving or erratic driving, has nothing to do with your ability to carry responsibly.

What I was trying to say about picking fights was that carrying a gun should make you LESS likely to get involved in altercations, because at a minimum you don't want to put your gun into the hands of someone who's scuffling with you. If you're in a fistfight, with a gun holstered on your waist, then the winner will have control of your gun. That's irresponsible, because by definition we are the good guys and the other guy is a bad guy, otherwise, why are we hitting him?

As for the host of other "character" reasons proffered by various sheriffs, many of them are bogus, especially where simple, peaceful open carry is used to justify revocation. It's a judgment call, but the OC extremists are often just as extreme as the anti-OC extremists. Pulling the LTCF from everyone who OC's is just as extreme as arguing that irresponsible behavior while carrying is not a justification for revocation. "Liberty" is not the same as "anarchy", and the government of a crowded society has to determine the boundaries between my rights and yours.