Counties refusing to issue Non-Resident permits and applying additional requirements.

[danp]

Here's a question for you lawyers if you feel like researching it...

In the process of populating our county database I found that many counties simply do not issue permits to non-residents or in some cases apply additional requirements I'm not convinced they are allowed to do such as:

1. Huntingdon County: Non-resident permits will only be issued to people who own property in the county.
2. Lycoming County: Requires that non-residents have an address in the county.

So if any of you lawyers feel like doing a little research can you tell us if there is any way they can legally do this?

All I know (that would indicate that they cant) is:

(e) Issuance of license.--
(1) 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. A license shall not be issued to any of the following:

(i) An individual whose character and reputation is such that the individual would be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety.
(ii) An individual who has been convicted of an offense under the act of April 14, 1972 (P.L.233, No.64), known as The Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act.
(iii) An individual convicted of a crime enumerated in section 6105.
(iv) An individual who, within the past ten years, has been adjudicated delinquent for a crime enumerated in section 6105 or for an offense under The Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act.
(v) An individual who is not of sound mind or who has ever been committed to a mental institution.
(vi) An individual who is addicted to or is an unlawful user of marijuana or a stimulant, depressant or narcotic drug.
(vii) An individual who is a habitual drunkard.
(viii) An individual who is charged with or has been convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year except as provided for in section 6123 (relating to waiver of disability or pardons).
(ix) A resident of another state who does not possess a current license or permit or similar document to carry a firearm issued by that state if a license is provided for by the laws of that state, as published annually in the Federal Register by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms of the Department of the Treasury under 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(19) (relating to definitions).
(x) An alien who is illegally in the United States.
(xi) An individual who has been discharged from the armed forces of the United States under dishonorable conditions.
(xii) An individual who is a fugitive from justice. This subparagraph does not apply to an individual whose fugitive status is based upon nonmoving or moving summary offense under Title 75 (relating to vehicles.)
(xiii) An individual who is otherwise prohibited from possessing, using, manufacturing, controlling, purchasing, selling or transferring a firearm as provided by section 6105.

My offer still stands to buy you guys dinner sometime if you feel like visiting Philly

[ChamberedRound]

On a related note, there's also the issue of counties with additional requirements for resident permits as well. For example, according to some here the Delaware county Sheriff's office contacts the applicant's employer, even if the reason for the applying is not business related:

http://www.pafoa.org/forum/concealed...need-help.html
http://www.pafoa.org/forum/concealed...n-process.html

[Rule10b5]

I don't know of anything in the UFA that allows them to refuse to issue to non-residents (assuming they satisfy the criteria for issuance) or to add any "extra" requirement like owning property or any such nonsense. My first thought was that it was that bullshit Sheriff Fee Act or some other regulation that allowed them to avoid undue burden or something, but I didn't see anything appropriate. Under the SFA, they're allowed simply to assess a fee for a service they perform, so they get no help there.

The only other thing I can think of is that they're basing their refusal on a regulation or local rule that existed prior to the passage of the UFA. Given that such a regulation is now moot, perhaps we can generate a letter that the PAFOA can send.

I'm a bit surprised by Chester County (because that's where I live). I'll call them in a bit to see why.

Would you like me to draft the letter? I'm not talking a full PA right to know letter -- just a basic, "we are the PAFOA and we were wondering what the basis for you rule was" type letter. If they tell us to piss off, I can send a formal RTK letter on behalf of PAFOA.

While it's irritating, it isn't all that crucial, given that any non-resident can apply to any other county. If Chester tells you "we don't do that" there are a dozen others that will.

The other stuff regarding additional investigation conducted (calling your employer or additional references) is a bit of a closer call, legally. While the application is supposed to be standardized across the Commonwealth, each Sheriff is supposed to conduct his own "investigation" into the applicant's history and character. Sec. 6109(d) appears not to limit how the investigate.

[danp]

Well I think I'd be interested in your opinion in general of whether this is really an issue to pursue.

Obviously at some point the PAFOA would like to become involved in helping to resolve these issues.

While this is definitely not the biggest issue on earth as there are many other counties willing to issue them I sort of feel like if we're all required to follow all these laws to a 'T' it seems only fair that the government/authorities should have to as well. It's more of a principle thing as opposed to a practical one.

Our list was generated from phone calls with each Sheriff's office and in many cases we did not speak with the Sheriff directly but rather whoever answered the phone. There's a chance that perhaps the person we spoke to in Chester county for example was simply mis-informed so if we're going to raise the issue I'd absolutely want to double check again with a polite phone call to each county to verify the information before going on the "war-path" so to speak.

[Rule10b5]

Just had a good chat with a Deputy. No surprise, they're real good guys there -- they've always been incredibly helpful and fast when I've dealt with them in the past.

He stated that there is no basis in the UFA for Chester County (or Delaware or Philadelphia) to refuse to issue a non-resident permit to a person who holds a valid permit from another state.

He stated that the basis for the refusal was simple "policy" set by Sheriff Welsh. Her reason was that everyone from Delaware (state) was coming up to Chester County and swamping them with applications, that they'd already maxed out the fee, and couldn't afford the time and money to conduct the investigations.

He was also very helpful in suggesting application to other counties that do issue non-resident permits or simply getting a Florida permit.

Given the tone of the conversation, and Welsh's reason, I don't think this is a battle that needs to be fought. While the law says what it says, I don't (i) want to create bad blood when other easier alternatives to get non-resident permits exist; and (ii) want to overburden my local Sheriff to help out folks from DE who aren't paying taxes.

EDIT TO ADD: They said Welsh herself would be happy to talk to me if I'd like. I declined. I don't want a profile as a pain in the ass in my home county.

[Rule10b5]

Draft Letter:

------

Dear Sheriff ____________

I write on behalf of the Pennsylvania Firearm Owners Association (the “PAFOA”). The PAFOA is a non-profit organization created with the goal of preserving the individual right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by Article 21 of Pennsylvania Constitution and the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Recently, we were contacted by residents of other states who were each seeking, pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S. §6109, a Pennsylvania License to Carry Firearms (“LCF”). They informed us that they (i) held a valid license to carry in their respective home states and; (ii) contacted your office, and were informed by your personnel that your office does not issue a LCF to non-residents of Pennsylvania.

Pennsylvania’s Uniform Firearms Act, 18 Pa.C.S. §6100 et seq. (the “UFA”) states that:

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. A license shall not be issued to any of the following:
…
(ix) A resident of another state who does not possess a current license or permit or similar document to carry a firearm issued by that state if a license is provided for by the laws of that state, as published annually in the Federal Register by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms of the Department of the Treasury under 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(19) (relating to definitions).
Id. at §6109(e)(1).

Given that each individual who contacted us holds a valid license to carry firearms in his home state (and is otherwise entitled to a LCF in Pennsylvania under the UFA’s “shall issue” provision), we are curious as to the legal basis for your office’s declination to issue permits to otherwise qualified non-residents of Pennsylvania. While we understand that your office is occupied with other, certainly, more important law enforcement duties than the issuance of LCFs to non-residents, we would greatly appreciate an answer to this question.

We look forward to hearing from you soon.

Warm Regards,


------------------
Title, PAFOA

--------


Feel free to comment and change. You're going to (obviously) need to block quote the statutes and re-format.

[danp]

Just had a good chat with a Deputy. No surprise, they're real good guys there -- they've always been incredibly helpful and fast when I've dealt with them in the past.

I have found this with almost every Sheriff's office I spoke with so far. They seem to be a very different breed of law enforcement compared to trying to speak with the Philadelphia PD for example.

He stated that there is no basis in the UFA for Chester County (or Delaware or Philadelphia) to refuse to issue a non-resident permit to a person who holds a valid permit from another state.

He stated that the basis for the refusal was simple "policy" set by Sheriff Welsh. Her reason was that everyone from Delaware (state) was coming up to Chester County and swamping them with applications, that they'd already maxed out the fee, and couldn't afford the time and money to conduct the investigations.

He was also very helpful in suggesting application to other counties that do issue non-resident permits or simply getting a Florida permit.

If anything I think we have to respect the no-BS response here in a way. By the way do you have any idea what fee they "maxed out"? Is there some sort of limit on their budget to process permits? I figured all costs of processing a permit was covered by the application fee.

Given the tone of the conversation, and Welsh's reason, I don't think this is a battle that needs to be fought. While the law says what it says, I don't (i) want to create bad blood when other easier alternatives to get non-resident permits exist; and (ii) want to overburden my local Sheriff to help out folks from DE who aren't paying taxes.

I'm starting to feel this way too. There's probably bigger fish to fry and making trouble for people over this is probably not a good long-term game plan. There may be larger issues with Sheriff's in the future where we might enjoy bridges that have not been burned.

Sending a letter politely asking for an explanation on the policy from each county might still however be a good idea. Perhaps a little nudge might help some counties start issuing them without having to really 'fight' it.

As usual thanks for your insight.

[Rule10b5]

If anything I think we have to respect the no-BS response here in a way. By the way do you have any idea what fee they "maxed out"? Is there some sort of limit on their budget to process permits? I figured all costs of processing a permit was covered by the application fee.

The "maxed out" reference was to the application fee. He said they couldn't take the application fee any higher, even using the Sheriff Fee Act, and that the $46 wasn't enough (along with all the man hours and additional staff they'd have to fire, presumably) to cover non-resident applications. I got the feeling that they were, on a simple "time" basis, operating at a loss when it comes to non-resident permits.