Police seize LTCF

[1713]

The reason I don't think a seizure is appropriate at all, especially if the LTCF is seized over a minor charge, say a summary offense of some kind, is that if the gun owner were to need to provide his/her license for inspection between the time of the original encounter, and his/her license being returned, the fact that the LEO took it results in "a rebuttable presumption of nonlicensure" under 18 Pa.C.S. § 6122.

Basically a seizure of the physical license creates the possibility for unnecessary hassles, despite the likelihood/unlikelihood of them occurring, and appears to have no basis in law. Therefore I don't think it's right. I hope that clears up any confusion.

I see what you mean.

[Hokkmike]

not to get off topic but you can make a copy to carry? just like throw it in my printer at home to copy it?

Not in Sullivan County - It has to be embossed with the Sheriff's County Seal. That can not be copied. But, when you pick up the LTCF they make a copy for you.

[gnbrotz]

Not in Sullivan County - It has to be embossed with the Sheriff's County Seal. That can not be copied. But, when you pick up the LTCF they make a copy for you.

Statute outlines requirements for the "characteristics" of the tangible LTCF. Being embossed with a county seal is not required for the LTCF to be valid. If it were, then all other county licenses not so embossed would be invalid, and the Sheriff cannot legally impose additional conditions, be it for application, conduct for recipients (MUST notify LEOs for example) or any other aspect of licensing not mandated by statute.

[gnbrotz]

The reason I don't think a seizure is appropriate at all, especially if the LTCF is seized over a minor charge, say a summary offense of some kind, is that if the gun owner were to need to provide his/her license for inspection between the time of the original encounter, and his/her license being returned, the fact that the LEO took it results in "a rebuttable presumption of nonlicensure" under 18 Pa.C.S. § 6122.

Basically a seizure of the physical license creates the possibility for unnecessary hassles, despite the likelihood/unlikelihood of them occurring, and appears to have no basis in law. Therefore I don't think it's right. I hope that clears up any confusion.

I agree. If faced with a "confiscation" scenario, I will comply, but not consent, then return home, pick up another copy and continue carrying as usual. Until I have been notified in the statutorily require method that my license has been revoked, I don't care if I've had 1 or 100 copies confiscated, I am not lawfully prohibited from carrying, nor do I cease to be "licensed".

[unclejumbo]

Do you know if the sheriff then "officially revoked" the LTCF by sending certified mail to the individual?

I don't...........

[Kurt_D]

I would think that the confiscation of the physical LTCF would fall under the same restrictions as any government issued piece of ID. The mode of surrender of that piece of paper or card (LTCF) is very specifically dictated in the UFA.

You can't summarily take (and retain) a SS card, or a state issued ID on a whim. That's right up there with seizing a $20 bill from someone's wallet because "the sheriff told me to do it" or you didn't think the person should have it. Where's the due process, for Pete's sake? Oh, gimme your shoes and house keys, while you're at it...

[MDJschool]

The United States government might be the greatest organized criminal syndicate in the US (and perhaps the world). Pennsylvania is certainly an arm of that, and its henchmen are very visible.

What separates a lawful government from the organized criminal syndicate is a backing by law. Since much of the interaction between the state and the citizen would otherwise involve criminal acts without that rationalization, there must be the foundation in law to act. Therefore, a police officer is no better than another gang member in his criminal act until he has an excuse for his action founded in law.

Most LTCF deprivations are simply going to be inexcusable thefts or robberies, since there is no lawful or reasonable reason to retain them. If someone presents an LTCF to an officer, on their on will or acquiescence to a lawful demand, someone is going to be able to testify about its actual status at a preliminary hearing, be it the sheriff or the PSP, so no need to keep it for that reason. If it is suspected to be counterfeit, just testify to it later or better yet, take a picture, and in any case, give it back. If it might be revoked, is going to be revoked, or is revoked, give it back.

The rules are laid out quite plainly in 6109, that the sheriff is the issuing authority and the revoking authority, and there is a very specific format for a revocation, that there be particular notice sent by certified mail and HE HIMSELF MUST SURRENDER THE LICENSE TO THE ISSUING AUTHORITY (6109(i)). A police who confiscates the license subjects a individual to the untenable situation that if his license were actually revoked, he would be unable to comply with 6109(i), and would, on its face, be guilty of a summary offense.

Confiscating a license also is a liberty deprivation for someone whose license has not been revoked, a confiscation whose due process can doubtfully be explained. If it were to be believed that failing to present the license when demanded by 6122, where the license was held to be only that particular original prescribed for issuance by the PSP, taking the license prematurely would presumably subject a licensed individual to arrest at best, or at worst a(nother) 6122/6119 VUFA charge that would just as well have one banned from guns for life. And what if that license confiscated were 'accidentally' lost, how would a defendant who has no copy present it at the preliminary hearing to completely absolve himself?

If the government has your LTCF but no lawful standing, file a Motion to Return Property in the Court of Common Pleas of the judicial district where the property is expected to reside.
If someone takes your LTCF without your consent, file theft/robbery charges, official oppression, and whatever other applicable charge.

If the officer can't cite the law that justifies his seizure of an LTCF, he should not seize it, and if does not cease to seize it, treat him as the criminal he is.

[dsnover]

As usual, a very well-thought out posting, heavy on facts and common sense.

Rep button broken....Grr..

The United States government might be the greatest organized criminal syndicate in the US (and perhaps the world). Pennsylvania is certainly an arm of that, and its henchmen are very visible.

What separates a lawful government from the organized criminal syndicate is a backing by law. Since much of the interaction between the state and the citizen would otherwise involve criminal acts without that rationalization, there must be the foundation in law to act. Therefore, a police officer is no better than another gang member in his criminal act until he has an excuse for his action founded in law.

Most LTCF deprivations are simply going to be inexcusable thefts or robberies, since there is no lawful or reasonable reason to retain them. If someone presents an LTCF to an officer, on their on will or acquiescence to a lawful demand, someone is going to be able to testify about its actual status at a preliminary hearing, be it the sheriff or the PSP, so no need to keep it for that reason. If it is suspected to be counterfeit, just testify to it later or better yet, take a picture, and in any case, give it back. If it might be revoked, is going to be revoked, or is revoked, give it back.

The rules are laid out quite plainly in 6109, that the sheriff is the issuing authority and the revoking authority, and there is a very specific format for a revocation, that there be particular notice sent by certified mail and HE HIMSELF MUST SURRENDER THE LICENSE TO THE ISSUING AUTHORITY (6109(i)). A police who confiscates the license subjects a individual to the untenable situation that if his license were actually revoked, he would be unable to comply with 6109(i), and would, on its face, be guilty of a summary offense.

Confiscating a license also is a liberty deprivation for someone whose license has not been revoked, a confiscation whose due process can doubtfully be explained. If it were to be believed that failing to present the license when demanded by 6122, where the license was held to be only that particular original prescribed for issuance by the PSP, taking the license prematurely would presumably subject a licensed individual to arrest at best, or at worst a(nother) 6122/6119 VUFA charge that would just as well have one banned from guns for life. And what if that license confiscated were 'accidentally' lost, how would a defendant who has no copy present it at the preliminary hearing to completely absolve himself?

If the government has your LTCF but no lawful standing, file a Motion to Return Property in the Court of Common Pleas of the judicial district where the property is expected to reside.
If someone takes your LTCF without your consent, file theft/robbery charges, official oppression, and whatever other applicable charge.

If the officer can't cite the law that justifies his seizure of an LTCF, he should not seize it, and if does not cease to seize it, treat him as the criminal he is.