Other lawful purpose case in Drexel Hill?

[PAMedic=F|A=]

The details matter, and we don't get reliable facts from the media. Too soon to rush to judgment, even when it's a cop.

There's a logical exception in the statutes for disclosures necessary to carry out the purposes of the UFA. One purpose of the UFA is to prosecute those without LTCFs (in circumstances where one is required), and to not prosecute those with them. To the extent relevant to any criminal case, disclosures are inevitable and lawful, if the disclosure is related to the averments in pleadings by police and the DA, or is subsequent to the court filings. It's not an unlawful disclosure to repeat something mentioned in open court or in papers available to anyone with 50 cents a page for copying costs.

That being said, if the issuing authority discloses frivolously, that's illegal.

"Jordan, who was an employee with Staffing Plus of Haverford, has a concealed-carry weapons permit and an Act 235 permit, which is issued to security guards by state police, Chitwood said."

Chitwood is not the issuing authority, the Delaware County Sheriff is. Did Chitwood find out this info in the context of a bona fide criminal investigation? Probably. Did he first publish it without justification? Maybe. There are multiple provisions covering this; for example:

"(2) Notwithstanding any other law regarding the confidentiality of information, inquiries to the Firearms License Validation System regarding the validity of any Pennsylvania license to carry a firearm may only be made by law enforcement personnel acting within the scope of their official duties."

"(3) Any person, licensed dealer, licensed manufacturer or licensed importer who knowingly and intentionally requests a criminal history, juvenile delinquency or mental health record check or other confidential information from the Pennsylvania State Police under this chapter for any purpose other than compliance with this chapter or knowingly and intentionally disseminates any criminal history, juvenile delinquency or mental health record or other confidential information to any person other than the subject of the information commits a felony of the third degree."

One problem; read strictly, the Commonwealth would be unable to show that a defendant has an LTCF in any court case. So there must be some scope of authorized disclosure to some 3rd parties, like judges and opposing counsel and other "law enforcement personnel", and anything that shows up in a police complaint (for example, "we didn't charge him with unlawful concealed carry because he has an LTCF") ceases to be confidential once it's a public record, just like a legal client loses confidentiality if he talks to his lawyer in the presence of random people.

Chitwood is not a friend of liberty or gun owners, he's got a bunker mentality, and in that area, maybe he should, but more selectively. It's too soon to say that he committed a felony, without knowing the details. Maybe yes, maybe no.

Devils advocate here, but there are something like a dozen exceptions to having a LTCF. Such as spouses firearm in the car, LEO status. Thus the police report could say "investigation concluded reported unlawful carry was unfounded", without disclosing why.

Personally, I am inclined to go with a strict ruling of "any disclosure is illegal" since even asking why someone is carrying by an agent of the Commonwealth is a violation of the Commonwealth Constitution, and I, for one would applaud the DA who enforced it.
Not that I expect it to happen.

[bogey1]

"This guy was hired to take care of a special-needs student, but he was ready for war," Chitwood said.

What a douche nozzle.

[Don Quixote]

40 caliber Glock 17?

[Sgt.K]

40 caliber Glock 17?

Read it again...

... a .40-caliber Glock with 17 live rounds...

It doesn't state model#.

[JenniferG]

Dang that guy was ready for war. What does he need a gun for? What is he afraid of ? A real man would punch an attacker in the face or hide in the closet with a rape whistle.

OK after all the sarcastic remarks, why the heck would he leave a round in the sink from his firearm? Too stupid to own a firearm maybe?

[Don Quixote]

Read it again...



It doesn't state model#.

That's what I get for skimming the article. But that begs the next question... does glock make. 17 rnd 40?

[Justin2012]

I'm with everyone else on this thread about how the round ended up in the sink. The most likely scenario is that he racked the slide and the bullet flew into it. If that's the case, that also begs the question of why in the heck would he feel the need to do that in the first place. Personally, if I was carrying a gun in a place that was prohibited by law (which I would never do anyway), then I would make DAMN sure that it stayed in my holster and was completely concealed AT ALL TIMES. With that being said, I still feel sympathy for this guy; it looks like he was a school employee that just wanted to be able to defend himself and the students in the event of a Sandy Hook type scenario.

[CartBone69]

As far i know my Glock 22 has a 15 round, i think they do make a 22 rounder.

[Don Quixote]

As far i know my Glock 22 has a 15 round, i think they do make a 22 rounder.

So, either way, the reporter probably got something wrong in the article. Come to think of it, "Glock" might just be used in the Gerneric, reporter's catch-all sense for "evil black handgun"

[mpan72]

So, either way, the reporter probably got something wrong in the article. Come to think of it, "Glock" might just be used in the Gerneric, reporter's catch-all sense for "evil black handgun"

One of my coworkers said he used to have a gun. I asked him what kind and he said "a Glock". A few days later he was leafing through one of my hunting clips and said "I want one of these Glocks". He showed me the picture and it was a 1911 style pistol. I found out he thought all semi-auto handguns were Glocks. I explained that Glock is a brand not a style. He said most of the people in his circle were under the same impression.