18PA.C.S6109(i) offense for sheriff on successful overturn of recovation

**pex** · May 17th, 2008, 04:41 PM

Do we have any accounts of a charge on a Sheriff with a 18PA.C.S6109(i) offense after a person has successfully overturned a revocation (the strongest time to do it, I imagine)?

Note the following:

(i) Revocation.--A license to carry firearms may be revoked by the issuing authority for good cause. A license to carry firearms shall be revoked by the issuing authority for any reason stated in subsection (e)(1) which occurs during the term of the permit. Notice of revocation shall be in writing and shall state the specific reason for revocation. Notice shall be sent by certified mail to the individual whose license is revoked, and, at that time, notice shall also be provided to the Pennsylvania State Police by electronic means, including e-mail or facsimile transmission, that the license is no longer valid. An individual whose license is revoked shall surrender the license to the issuing authority within five days of receipt of the notice. An individual whose license is revoked may appeal to the court of common pleas for the judicial district in which the individual resides. An individual who violates this section commits a summary offense.

Obviously a sheriff could violate this by not undertaking the enlisted requirements by law. Note that it is a violator of the section and not the violator of the section whose license has been revoked.

**danp** · May 17th, 2008, 09:37 PM

I believe that punishment is for people who fail to turn in their permit on notice of revocation, not for the sheriff

**gnbrotz** · May 17th, 2008, 11:15 PM

Originally Posted by danp

I believe that punishment is for people who fail to turn in their permit on notice of revocation, not for the sheriff

I agree with dan, BUT based on the literal wording of the section, I can see where you're coming from and a good attorney might make an interesting argument to that effect.

**headcase** · May 18th, 2008, 12:25 AM

I don't believe the argument would get anywhere. The statute specifically names the parties it refers to all through the statute. Every time the word "Individual" is used, it refers to the license holder. I wish it was murkier, but I don't believe it is...

**policemedic** · May 18th, 2008, 02:16 AM

Originally Posted by headcase

I don't believe the argument would get anywhere. The statute specifically names the parties it refers to all through the statute. Every time the word "Individual" is used, it refers to the license holder. I wish it was murkier, but I don't believe it is...

Even if it were murkier, the answer would likely be found in the legislative intent of those who drafted the UFA. I interpret the section to apply to the licensee.

**Pa. Patriot** · May 18th, 2008, 02:18 AM

Originally Posted by policemedic

I interpret the section to apply to the licensee.

Or "former" licensee as the case would be

**pex** · May 18th, 2008, 03:05 AM

Originally Posted by policemedic

Even if it were murkier, the answer would likely be found in the legislative intent of those who drafted the UFA. I interpret the section to apply to the licensee.

In that case, I would try to find the judge who decided the handgun registry was alright. Maybe we could get 'individual' to apply to a sheriff here!