Confidentiality for those who have NOT applied for a LTCF?

[gnbrotz]

If the Sheriff states to the press that a particular individual does not have a LTCF, do you believe they have violated the section quoted below?

(3.1) Any person, licensed dealer, licensed manufacturer or licensed importer who knowingly and intentionally obtains or furnishes information collected or maintained pursuant to section 6109 for any purpose other than compliance with this chapter or who knowingly or intentionally disseminates, publishes or otherwise makes available such information to any person other than the subject of the information commits a felony of the third degree.

Are there other sections of law (that you can cite) that might protect non-applicants/holders from having that status made public?

[tl_3237]

IMO, unless the non-LTCFer is identified as not having the license due to an application followed by rejection, the fact that no license has been issued is not disseminating "information collected or maintained pursuant to section 6109 ". Without an application there is no information obtained. The information that 6111(3.1) is referencing is information which the applicant (or firearm purchaser) has provided under force of law as well as any derivative information gleaned from any follow-on inverstigation pursuant to the application/purchase.

6109 does not require that a list of non-LTCFers be maintained.

True, the sheriff logically deduced that the person was non-licensed by noting the absence of his name on the LTCF list, which is protected, but that is not the same as disclosure of an LTCFer's information. Now if the sheriff published a list of all county non-LTCFers then that would be tantamount to publishing indirectly the protected LTCF list and subject to sanction.

[Pa. Patriot]

I say yes, he is in violation.

He clearly used "information collected or maintained pursuant to section 6109 " to discern and then disclose license status of an individual.

Now, will the DA be filing charges? Yeah, right

[gnbrotz]

I say yes, he is in violation.

He clearly used "information collected or maintained pursuant to section 6109 " to discern and then disclose license status of an individual.

Now, will the DA be filing charges? Yeah, right

Well.....I did email the reporter who wrote the article, and gave my own opinion of the violation - in line with your opinion (BIG surprise). I also touched on other "issues" that needed clarification (implied need for license to possess in one's home, mention of "registration"). You'll be the first to know if I hear back.

[anonymouse]

Have a link to the article in question?

[gnbrotz]

Have a link to the article in question?

I do, but since the same news story (from a different source) has already been posted, I should post it in that thread. Here's a link:

http://forum.pafoa.org/news-123/9396...ml#post1145714

[Deadpan]

Interesting...Are you suggesting then that it is a violation of confidentiality everytime an article quotes LE as saying that a person involved in an incident is licensed?

[gnbrotz]

Interesting...Are you suggesting then that it is a violation of confidentiality everytime an article quotes LE as saying that a person involved in an incident is licensed?

Absolutely. By both the Sheriff/LEO that provides the information, and the individual who includes it in a news article.

[Kurt_D]

That's a kind of interesting question, now that I've reread it and the article posted in the other thread a few times. You could say that the sheriff was not in violation since he did not disseminate any COLLECTED information (address, SSN, convictions, etc.) pertaining to 6109. He simply stated, as a fact, that the person in question doesn't have an LTCF. He didn't divulge any info that may have been contained in an application (or lack of one).

The other question that pops into my mind is whether or not holding an LTCF is a matter of public record. If it is, then there was no violation. If it is not, then what he did may be covered by that paragraph.

That'd really be one for a lawyer to begin to interpret.

Don't interpret this as an absolution of what happened, just as a point of discussion.

[Curmudgeon]

That's a kind of interesting question, now that I've reread it and the article posted in the other thread a few times. You could say that the sheriff was not in violation since he did not disseminate any COLLECTED information (address, SSN, convictions, etc.) pertaining to 6109. He simply stated, as a fact, that the person in question doesn't have an LTCF. He didn't divulge any info that may have been contained in an application (or lack of one).

The other question that pops into my mind is whether or not holding an LTCF is a matter of public record. If it is, then there was no violation. If it is not, then what he did may be covered by that paragraph.

That'd really be one for a lawyer to begin to interpret.

Don't interpret this as an absolution of what happened, just as a point of discussion.

How could the records be public if releasing the info is a violation of law?