My concealed carry permit applictaion was denied???

[jahwarrior72]

Ok, the short answer to your question is: The requirements to possess a LTCF is more stringent than to merely own a firearm. You know, higher standards!!!

I see some folks don't like my previous post. Fine...here's why:

1) Age 15-Drug paraphernalia
2) Possesion of alcohol by minor
3) At least age 18 and joined the Army and was treated badly by an employer resulting in him receiving a less than honorable discharge.

He states he is not a young punk. Fine, I'll go with it. I think all criminals should have full rights to protect themselves, after a demonstrated period of favorable character performance...like I said, if he's under 25, then no LTCF until he's 35. Plenty of time to either meet the challenge of being a good citizen or not. I'm not saying he should not be allowed to own firearms. I have always said that any criminal should have full rights restored but ten years after finishing their final sentence so a demonstrable time of favorable charactor assessment can be made. I think thats fair. At what juncture do we not uphold legal standards?

We have at least three years of documented and admitted criminal activity.
Age 15 through under 18... thats 15, 16, and 17.
The inability to function after intense screening, testing, and training. So he was basically fired ie... General under honorable conditions.

Within the first couple posts you said A COUPLE underage drinking citations or possession, now it's just one? Which is it? One or two? You first state a Marijuanna possession and now its just paraphanalia. Which is it?
Are you now misleading this thread and those who are following it?

I'm be blunt. I don't see your character as being worthy of having a LTCF. Plain and simple. A number of arrests and convictions, at least 18 months, if not 2 plus years of military service and couldn't or wouldn't perform. So you were fired.

I'm not saying you can't own firearms. I'm not saying you shouldn't EVER be allowed to have a LTCF. What I'm saying is, in my eyes, based on your own admission, I agree with the denial you received.

You were treated badly....boo freakin hoo....everybody is treated badly at some point or another by somebody...employer, loved one, friend, etc...man up!!!
For those of you who don't know how the US Army has worked the last several years, I'll clue ya in.

Initial recruiting and training...personal interview, background check, for this guy, waivers for his convictions signed off by a general officer as we understand kids make mistakes...ASVAB test, screening with doctors, paralegals, career counselors etc...then he's shipped to a reception unit where he does his initial US Army incoming stuff. More medical exams, shots, dental, forms and more forms, clothing, etc..etc...etc...
Then however long basic training is these days....drill sergeants, platoon sergeants, 1SG's, Lt's, Captians, instructors at various training sites...Total time in military, 3 to 4 months.
Then AIT, more of the same as above and graduation. Another 3 or 4 months minimum and shipped to their unit. Training for deployment. Corporals, sergeants, and Lt's and captains again...some rotating out, some geting out, some new coming in, constant change...Another 3 or 4 monhs, usually longer...then we'll assume a one year deployment. Then come home, debriefing, and more medical, dental, health assessments, mental health etc... then back to the unit and sit around and wait for 2 or 3 months as personnel rotate out and new come in.

At some point, with all the personnel changes, someone would have given the OP a break. They couldn't all treat him like dirt. Hell, even if he had a drug or alcohol problem, The Army spends millions treating it. Mandatory counseling, AA/NA meetings, prescription drugs so you get sick if you drink while in the program...mental health counselors, drug and alcohol awareness training, counseling etc.. etc.. etc...No soldier is discharged on a first offense these days. You have to quit yourself to have the Army quit you. So all these diffenent corporals, sergeants, staff sergeants, Senior Sergeants, Lt's, Captains, and LT. Colonels all treated OP badly on a rotating basis? Hog wash.

You can bullshit the people here about how you deserve a LTCF at this point in your life but I support the letter of denial.

this should have been your first response. it's okay to be a dick (lord knows, i do it often enough), as long as you can justify it, like you just did.

[MDJschool]

Son of the revolution, I dearly hope this is just some exercise, that you are perhaps part of some debate team and are practicing arguing for 'the other side' so that you can both understand 'where they come from' and how to better debate. Otherwise, I have no idea what value there is in stating what you have stated, and may soon have to summon the Zombie Response Team, because I fear there is no antidote for what you've been infected with.

So................ what the means in practical terms is that the OP is unfortunately going to suffer consequences for his actions, at least in the current climate. I can dream about how great things could be, but I prefer to deal with the reality of how to work within the way things are, at least until such time as they change.

The problem isn't that you've 'dealt' with some unlawful authority, it's that you've validated it. How can a person 'take responsibility' for actions (as they have been framed) for which they aren't responsible? What is the responsibility, absent government, one would take for possessing so-called drug paraphernalia and alcohol? Can we cite the victim whose unlawful aggression has caused them harm or loss?

The OP clearly knew that possession of alcohol by a minor was an " offense " and that there was some level of risk of punishment, and choose to do it anyway.

Except that there's no disbarment from an LTCF for even that...

The OP also certainly knew that pot is currently illegal , but choose too partake anyway ( and before someone says it, I've made it clear more then once I fully support legalization of pot ).

This seems to carry on the long train of assumptions that began from customloaded. Infectious, indeed. I'm here to tell you that the police can call anything paraphernalia and a judge will play along, even though the actual statute reads that a person must 'use or possess with intent to use drug paraphernalia [with] a controlled substance'. Even where they prove that, it can mean that simply by someone's intent were they convicted of the crime, which appears to make it a thought-crime. Further, I don't see anywhere that the OP said he ever ingested marijuana. Of all the possibilities involved I don't see why it's fair to assume drug use over any other scenario. The OP said he got a 'marijuana' charge and later clarified that it was a paraphernalia charge. Should he have been convicted of such a charge, my bet is that the sheriff would not be so unclear that he is 'maybe instead undetermined' (nor would the PSP be so unsure).

6109(e)(1)(vi) isn't going to apply since, if anything could have been proven, it was that he was an unlawful user, rather than is (per Augustin in my previous post). Since he was under 18, unless he was 'charged as an adult' for a minor drug misdemeanor, he couldn't in any circumstance have been convicted for a CSDDCA violation (and this all assuming he was in PA at the time) because he was a minor (thus precluding licensure via 6109(e)(1)(ii), a salient point apparently not forgotten by the legislature who also noted in 6109(e)(1)(iv) that "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."

So maybe we're finally left with a consequence in fantasy-land so long as we carry along an assumption OP was adjudicated delinquent. Then, aside from the PICS check per 6105(d)(5) which included a juvenile delinquency check, the sheriff had a duty to "investigate whether the applicant would be precluded from receiving a license under subsection (e)(1)" per (d)(4). Then the sheriff must "refuse to issue a license on the basis of the investigation under subsection (d) and the accuracy of the information contained in the application. If the sheriff refuses to issue a license, the sheriff shall notify the applicant in writing of the refusal and the specific reasons".

So what are his consequence of OP's actions? Is one consequence that the sheriff refuses to follow the law and cite both the PICS check and the adjudication of juvenile delinquency for possession of drug paraphernalia? Is another consequence that the PSP will place his PICS check in research instead approving or denying the check? ???

He voluntarily choose with his own free will to " play the game " and he got caught. He might not have realized, in fact I'll go so far to say that he probably had no clue as a teenager, that the potential penalties would effect him in some completely unrelated way far in the future, but thats the way it is.

So by 'playing the game' I assume that you meant 'not committing suicide' because the nature of our body of law suggests that we're all criminals waiting to be caught, particularly for crimes lacking a victim, but also generally because there is simply proscription against any act conceived if we're willing to concede 'that's the way it is'. Because that really is 'the way it is', a law with no bounds.

I saw that we were delving into this level of comparison, so let me add:
Act: girl wearing short skirt; punishment: rape
Act: some guy talking shit on someone else's mom; punishment: being shot with gun
Act: offending a psychopath; punishment: psychopath brutalizes and kills offender's whole family
Act: living in a home, punishment: police get the wrong address and bust down your door for a warrant that isn't for you or your particular place, and shoots your dog

Isn't that just the way it is, and haven't in fact, the above things happened just that way?

How is it any different then people proclaiming they "dont care about some private property owners signs, Im gonna carry anyway , what they cant see they wont know about " ?

Their KNOWINGLY violating the terms of use of someone else's property, with full knowledge that there may be adverse consequences for them if discovered. I highly doubt alot of people would be offering condolences and praise if someone posted they knowingly broke the rules, got caught and punished and the consequences were more severe then they knew or thought were fair.

That might be fair if we ignore that the property owner were breaking rules himself, and further in ignorance that some person who has no right to speak about a property, not being an owner or his agent, is setting these terms anyway (see, for example, the PA constitution, as setting those rules and/or the people, being owners, granted agency to the government...). How would an abuse by government here be different than some random dude in a bar coming up to MadamRaven and talking about LTCFs and how she's doing some illegal and should leave when he doesn't even work for the place? What duty would she have had? What consequences ought she have had 'for her actions'? Somehow I just didn't find this an apt comparison.

I hung up on the ZRT but I really hope I don't have to press the redial button.

[Rundownfid]

I consider the right to protect oneself every bit as important as the right to vote. What is lost in the discussion is that this stems from inalienable rights, (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness). If a person is free, granted their normal civil rights, speech, assembly, the franchise, etc. they have a right to carry weapons for their own self defense. Not because I say so, or even because the laws of the Commonwealth of Pa. say so, not even because the Constitution of the US says so, but because we are all endowed by our creator with those rights. Gov't is created to protect those rights, not capriciously grant or withhold them.

So either put the OP in the slammer and officially take away his rights or let (the pot head SOB?) him carry.

[TXDMERC73]

you dont dial ZRT for this problem thats for Zombie invasions, you dial TRT -Troll Response Team, i dont know who is on that team

[son of the revolution]

Son of the revolution, I dearly hope this is just some exercise, that you are perhaps part of some debate team and are practicing arguing for 'the other side' so that you can both understand 'where they come from' and how to better debate. Otherwise, I have no idea what value there is in stating what you have stated, and may soon have to summon the Zombie Response Team, because I fear there is no antidote for what you've been infected with.



The problem isn't that you've 'dealt' with some unlawful authority, it's that you've validated it. How can a person 'take responsibility' for actions (as they have been framed) for which they aren't responsible? What is the responsibility, absent government, one would take for possessing so-called drug paraphernalia and alcohol? Can we cite the victim whose unlawful aggression has caused them harm or loss?



Except that there's no disbarment from an LTCF for even that...



This seems to carry on the long train of assumptions that began from customloaded. Infectious, indeed. I'm here to tell you that the police can call anything paraphernalia and a judge will play along, even though the actual statute reads that a person must 'use or possess with intent to use drug paraphernalia [with] a controlled substance'. Even where they prove that, it can mean that simply by someone's intent were they convicted of the crime, which appears to make it a thought-crime. Further, I don't see anywhere that the OP said he ever ingested marijuana. Of all the possibilities involved I don't see why it's fair to assume drug use over any other scenario. The OP said he got a 'marijuana' charge and later clarified that it was a paraphernalia charge. Should he have been convicted of such a charge, my bet is that the sheriff would not be so unclear that he is 'maybe instead undetermined' (nor would the PSP be so unsure).

6109(e)(1)(vi) isn't going to apply since, if anything could have been proven, it was that he was an unlawful user, rather than is (per Augustin in my previous post). Since he was under 18, unless he was 'charged as an adult' for a minor drug misdemeanor, he couldn't in any circumstance have been convicted for a CSDDCA violation (and this all assuming he was in PA at the time) because he was a minor (thus precluding licensure via 6109(e)(1)(ii), a salient point apparently not forgotten by the legislature who also noted in 6109(e)(1)(iv) that "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."

So maybe we're finally left with a consequence in fantasy-land so long as we carry along an assumption OP was adjudicated delinquent. Then, aside from the PICS check per 6105(d)(5) which included a juvenile delinquency check, the sheriff had a duty to "investigate whether the applicant would be precluded from receiving a license under subsection (e)(1)" per (d)(4). Then the sheriff must "refuse to issue a license on the basis of the investigation under subsection (d) and the accuracy of the information contained in the application. If the sheriff refuses to issue a license, the sheriff shall notify the applicant in writing of the refusal and the specific reasons".

So what are his consequence of OP's actions? Is one consequence that the sheriff refuses to follow the law and cite both the PICS check and the adjudication of juvenile delinquency for possession of drug paraphernalia? Is another consequence that the PSP will place his PICS check in research instead approving or denying the check? ???




So by 'playing the game' I assume that you meant 'not committing suicide' because the nature of our body of law suggests that we're all criminals waiting to be caught, particularly for crimes lacking a victim, but also generally because there is simply proscription against any act conceived if we're willing to concede 'that's the way it is'. Because that really is 'the way it is', a law with no bounds.

I saw that we were delving into this level of comparison, so let me add:
Act: girl wearing short skirt; punishment: rape
Act: some guy talking shit on someone else's mom; punishment: being shot with gun
Act: offending a psychopath; punishment: psychopath brutalizes and kills offender's whole family
Act: living in a home, punishment: police get the wrong address and bust down your door for a warrant that isn't for you or your particular place, and shoots your dog

Isn't that just the way it is, and haven't in fact, the above things happened just that way?



That might be fair if we ignore that the property owner were breaking rules himself, and further in ignorance that some person who has no right to speak about a property, not being an owner or his agent, is setting these terms anyway (see, for example, the PA constitution, as setting those rules and/or the people, being owners, granted agency to the government...). How would an abuse by government here be different than some random dude in a bar coming up to MadamRaven and talking about LTCFs and how she's doing some illegal and should leave when he doesn't even work for the place? What duty would she have had? What consequences ought she have had 'for her actions'? Somehow I just didn't find this an apt comparison.

I hung up on the ZRT but I really hope I don't have to press the redial button.

Im happy to hear you hung up the phone, since Im certainly not infected. That was an excellent dissertation on both the factual aspects of the law as it stands written today and simultaneously a theoretical discourse on how things should be. Perhaps I wasnt clear enough, I thought my generalizations about being a strict constructionist,libertarian who recognizes the fallacy and illegitimacy of our current drug laws would have been enough to illustrate that I was NOT necessarily agreeing with the actions of the Sheriff from a legal standpoint, a moral one OR an ethical one. I'll also note for the record that I edited my last reply to include "partake/possession of paraphenalia" , apprently while you were writing. I'm also quite aware that literally anything can be labeled as " paraphenalia".

While you will certainly get no arguement from me about an " unjust law, being no law at all " the simple fact of the matter is thats simply NOT how things are currently practiced. Again, that doesnt make it right, but I dont see how complying with a law,even one you dont agree with, because the costs of not doing so are real,immediate and often steep , equates to validating the same law. I can think of a much better and safer place and method to challenge such unjust laws. With judicious use of jury nullification, sadly most jurors have NO CLUE they have this right and in many instances judges are precluded from even informing them of it. I can think of a perfect example of unjust laws I dont agree with but do comply with. TAXES ! I dont think its fair in any sense that 1/3rd of MY labor has to be handed over to the Govt, with the threat of incarceration for non compliance, to fund programs I may not agree with or approve of. Same thing for property taxes. If I buy and own free and clear a piece of land and a home, that I already paid a sales tax on, then yearly property taxes are nothing more then a sort of continual sales tax or a use tax if you prefer.

Or how about the double tax of the same income ? Once on payday, then again on any investment profits I might make, that were purchased with the money that was already taxed once. No offense but some elements of your post read like an overly simplistic and idealistic view. For those that are willing to proverbally "walk up to the lion and smack him in the face " I applaud their courage and conviction , but I certainly wouldnt want to be in their shoes.

Its getting late, so Im going to need some sleep and look at your post again with the benefit of some rest before trying to decide if Im going to respond in greater detail.

[Wiley-X]

I just wish the OP could spell. Maybe that's why the Army treated him so badly.

[40calkid]

ok look dude(customloaded) im tired of your shit you wana bash me then get the fuck off i made a simple post now why u want to waste your time bashing me is beyond me. so 1... i was not fired i OPTED to get out on a sexual harrassment case from my platoon seargent you dick head and i had possession of the alcohol and transportation of said alcohol so that makes 2 for those that cant count and the marijuana charge was because i had a bowl in my fucking closet. and as far as you judging my character in the ways of having a LTCF you dont know me from adam or eve the only thing you have is a few posts i made on here. get off my page unless your offering help obviously no one agrees with you on here.

[Wiley-X]

I'm leaning towards Customloaded's point of view. You have a history of demonstrably bad judgement as well as bad spelling.

[40calkid]

My bad judgment was at the age of 15. I never listed anything after that so i don't know how that makes up for 3 years of wrong doings. I would be curious to find out how many people that have a LTCF has dabbled in marijuana and alcohol in their adolescence. (Is that grammar better?)

[son of the revolution]

ok look dude(customloaded) im tired of your shit you wana bash me then get the fuck off i made a simple post now why u want to waste your time bashing me is beyond me. so 1... i was not fired i OPTED to get out on a sexual harrassment case from my platoon seargent you dick head and i had possession of the alcohol and transportation of said alcohol so that makes 2 for those that cant count and the marijuana charge was because i had a bowl in my fucking closet. and as far as you judging my character in the ways of having a LTCF you dont know me from adam or eve the only thing you have is a few posts i made on here. get off my page unless your offering help obviously no one agrees with you on here.

One of the things one must accept when posting on a public internet forum is that often one will receive commentary one might rather not. But you dont "own" this thread. Just sayin................. You might also be interested in knowing that customloaded is active duty military, just something you might want to consider.