Why your license was never actually revoked - juries, process, and law of the land

[Krichardson]

It might get interesting if anyone else bothers to say anything meaningful, toward the ends of securing rights for gun owners. Every poster has shitposted something, or posted simply to subscribe to the thread, which is not necessary to do.

Either add to my content, correct me preferably with citation or at least saying such a citation might exist, provide an alternative way to get this done, or get off this thread.

Sir,yes sir.I'll get off of your thread.
Good luck "educating" or telling any sheriff about their rights and duties.

[Effecarry]

http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/...2&div=0&chpt=5

There is Ch. 5 of Pa.C.S., Title 2. Read sections 551-555 in particular.

"No adjudication of a local agency shall be valid unless . . ." Ss 553.
"This subchapter shall apply to all local agencies." Ss 551.
"All adjudications . . . Shall be in writing, shall contain findings and the reasons for the adjudication . . ." Ss 554.
The sheriff is subject to local agency law. Gardner v. Jenkins, 116 pa. Cmwlth. Ct. 107, 110-111 (1988).

I would expect the treatment I'm getting from members of forum run by members of a Giffords or Brady organization, violence policy center, handgun control incorporated, or ceasefirePA. It is astounding that I'm seeing anti-gun trolling on what is supposed to be a pro gun rights form. I came, I saw, I cited. So what now?

I'm confused as to why any of you are at odds with trying to educate sheriffs. Try reading IN RE: appeal of McCrane, Pa Cmwlth ct docket 1749 C.D. 2016 (slip op dec. 8 2017) (unreported). "In sum, the record here does not support an inference of dangerous character." I am really not saying odd, weird, or irregular things about the process, and why sheriffs ought to be educated upon it.

[Effecarry]

Say, you sure can generate a snotty fucking attitude real quick, can't you?

I predict a short tenure here.

It is something that most definitely needs to be delivered to a moderator who makes a first response, like schmuck rabble. Is that the quality of the gun Forum to which you aspire? Is this the quality of your moderators?

Surely the man had something useful to say, and probably surely so can you. Yet, you would prefer not to contribute, but troll instead. That doesn't really make sense to me, if our goal really is to try to secure rights for gun owners.

I have a thread about option, following the explanation of why it was an option. If you cannot cooperate with forwarding that, correct me on the merits, providing alternative, or leave the thread.

[Walleye Hunter]

Damn, he's gone already and I was going to red chicklet him.

[knight0334]

Damn, he's gone already and I was going to red chicklet him.

It isn't too late for that.

[Walleye Hunter]

It isn't too late for that.

For me it is, his star is gone and all that remains is the 'report' triangle.

[internet troll]

It isn't too late for that.

He even got into talking in the 3rd person in his last post.

[knight0334]

For me it is, his star is gone and all that remains is the 'report' triangle.

Ahhhh.. I see.. Yeah, I didn't know it did that.

Chicklets applied from admin panel...

[raxar]

Well on the plus side now that he is banned he can move on to his true calling of writing Shakespearean level poetry.

[GunLawyer001]

There's a difference between stating that a revocation is invalid, vs putting forth the argument that it might be possible to get our anti-gun appellate courts to start treating them as invalid.

Neither of them gets us anywhere, especially when the advice comes from someone who loses every case and goes to jail while insisting that only he knows the Truth.

Pennsylvania residents used to be able to rely on an out-of-state license to carry, because the courts thought we were "any person". Remind me again, what case was it that ended that?