My concealed carry permit applictaion was denied???

[40calkid]

Maybe I was a little out of line saying what I said, at the same time I've been where he is and there is now reason to go into such depth of telling me why HE doesn't think i should have a LTCF. My question was: Why was it denied/undetermined?

[son of the revolution]

Maybe I was a little out of line saying what I said, at the same time I've been where he is and there is now reason to go into such depth of telling me why HE doesn't think i should have a LTCF. My question was: Why was it denied/undetermined?

Understood, but if you hang around here more then a week you'll quickly learn a couple things. People are VERY free with their opinions, even though they may sometimes be harsh, their certainly entitled to voice them. If you dont want to see such things, then in the future you might want to consider carefully what you post. This place is very much like a frat or even a platoon if you will. Lots of grab ass, lots of ball breaking, sometimes harshly so, but also knowing when to be serious, with TONS of wisdom and good advise and insight from people that have the experience and knowledge to have earned their props as " experts".

[IronSight]

Understood, but if you hang around here more then a week you'll quickly learn a couple things. People are VERY free with their opinions, even though they may sometimes be harsh, their certainly entitled to voice them. If you dont want to see such things, then in the future you might want to consider carefully what you post. This place is very much like a frat or even a platoon if you will. Lots of grab ass, lots of ball breaking, sometimes harshly so, but also knowing when to be serious, with TONS of wisdom and good advise and insight from people that have the experience and knowledge to have earned their props as " experts".

^^^^ What he said.

[40calkid]

Like I said I was a little out of line, I would like to stick to my original question. I don't need to know why one doesn't believe I should have a LTCF. I would like to know why I'm having this hold up. I am not a violent person or criminal by any means. I feel I am entitled to carry just as much as anyone else. I have no serious charges and it has been well over 5 years since said charges.

[MDJschool]

Maybe I was a little out of line saying what I said, at the same time I've been where he is and there is now reason to go into such depth of telling me why HE doesn't think i should have a LTCF. My question was: Why was it denied/undetermined?

I would like to know how an officer ever discovered you had a bowl in your closet, but the advice we usually give people here regarding interactions with law enforcement is to avoid incriminating oneself for any reason, and I would make that suggestion to 'facts' even existing after 'conviction'. You might consider going back and redacting such information from your posts that might relate you in any way to criminal activity.

I don't believe there is actually such a PICS status as 'undetermined'. In actuality, there is 'approval', for which the sheriff would receive a unique approval number, 'placed in research' for up to 15 days, until the PICS operator determines the certainty of approval or denial, at which time operator shall call the person performing the background check, and 'denial'. I imagine that no response from PICS within 15 days is 'deemed denied', but that an operator really should be getting back to the caller in every case. I don't trust what the PSP put out on their website as to represent a true state of law, but the above is essentially what the PSP say about PICS (which will have to do unless/until I can find an explanation of such status in the Pennsylvania Code to cite.)
http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal...&css=L2&mode=2

You said you sent in an application 7 days ago. Let's say received and reviewed the app 5 days ago. That's still 10 potential days of research left. I think you ought to call up the sheriff and ask him whether you're 'in research' or 'denied' as they are two different statuses, and that he should wait 15 days from whatever day he called and call back on the 15 day to see if you are actually denied. You might even consider printing out the PSP site cited above and set up a 5 minute or so meeting with him to explain this.

I imagine the form says you have 30 days to initiate a PICS challenge, so you can handle waiting out a 15 day research. Just make sure if they truly find you come back denied, you submit the challenge form, if to the best of your knowledge, information, and belief you are eligible for a license. Alternately I suppose you could accept the revocation letter as final and appeal it to the Court of Common Pleas as it lacks fair notice (since 'research' and 'denial' aren't the same, and this attempt by the sheriff could affect your due process expectations, and quite possibly the sheriff did not perform his complete subsection (d) investigation and state ALL the reasons for denial.) Some here will suggest you get a lawyer, and the under these circumstances you ought to, for any of the following: the expungment Willis suggested, deciding whether to submit a challenge to PSP if it is necessary, appealing to CCP.

We do appreciate the nicer-looking English here (those of us aficionados of the language, anyway).

[jahwarrior72]

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.

sexual harrassment, underage drinking, drug use,...yes, this is sounding better and better.

did you at least punch the bitch?

[Wiley-X]

(Is that grammar better?)

I never said anything about your grammar.

As for bad judgment, I'm not one for giving teens much slack. As a society we are psycho when it comes to teens. Oh, they have the maturity and judgment to drive. Oh, let them have sex, they know what they're doing. That's until something goes wrong and then the cry is, "They're only kids, they didn't know any better." If you want the freedom to make decisions then you better be prepared for the consequences.

As for marijuana and LTCF, we're not talking about anyone else. We're talking about you and how you got caught. It might be a silly law but you broke it and now have to deal with the consequences.

Most of us break rules but only fools break rules and not expect to have to deal with the fallout if they get caught.

[40calkid]

That post was very helpful MDJ.... I'm done proving myself, I screwed up when I was young, so be it. The point is there is nothing legally holding me from getting a LTCF. I think MDJschools post sounds a little more like what I might be going through. God knows the law enforcement in my county doesn't hold up to standard

[speedseeker]

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.

OK...respectfully, I'm a new guy here and I don't know how to send rep yet....but when I find out...this one gets big fat repitty rep.

[sixstringer]

I was told when I was in the navy that a person wouldn't be able to get a job with coca- cola or kiwi shoe polish if they were dishonerably discharged.These companies have contracts with the federal gov't. Don't know if this is true.Maybe the gen. discharge had something to do with it. The weed/parapernalia charge might have raised a flag.