(URGENT) Judicial reveiw 6114 and non certified denial letter?

[Sleeeper]

Under judicial review 6114 can you be denied a LTCF for the same reason a person got denied the year previous? Character clause denial only... even with character references from township officers and detectives of whom know the appliant..

And what if the sheriff sends a denial letter but not certified? I have read a few things about it not enough information unless i come out and ask outright.

[Sleeeper]

Any help at all would be appriciated guys, only have 30 days to figure this out,thanks...........

[Sleeeper]

Really? No one?

[kadar]

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...60548993893839

Michael TSOKAS, Appellant,
v.
BOARD OF LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS REVIEW.

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.

The Court stated in Harris v. Sheriff of Delaware County, 675 A.2d 400 (Pa.Cmwlth.1996), that even though the Uniform Firearms Act does not define good cause for purposes of revocation of a license issues under the Act, evidence of character and reputation are relevant to the issue of revocation. Clearly, the legislature intended to confer discretion upon police chiefs or sheriffs to determine whether an applicant should be licensed, and this principle applies with equal force to a determination of good cause for the revocation of a license granted under the Act. Id. When the evidence supports the conclusion that an individual licensed to carry a firearm does not possess the requisite character and reputation to do so, this Court must uphold the decision of a police chief or other proper official to revoke the license. Any suggestion by Appellant that the Board may not permanently revoke his license, or disapprove his application for a new license after one year, evinces a misinterpretation of the purposes of the Uniform Firearms Act. Based upon the foregoing, the Court affirms the order of the trial court.

[IronSight]

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...60548993893839

Michael TSOKAS, Appellant,
v.
BOARD OF LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS REVIEW.

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.

The Court stated in Harris v. Sheriff of Delaware County, 675 A.2d 400 (Pa.Cmwlth.1996), that even though the Uniform Firearms Act does not define good cause for purposes of revocation of a license issues under the Act, evidence of character and reputation are relevant to the issue of revocation. Clearly, the legislature intended to confer discretion upon police chiefs or sheriffs to determine whether an applicant should be licensed, and this principle applies with equal force to a determination of good cause for the revocation of a license granted under the Act. Id. When the evidence supports the conclusion that an individual licensed to carry a firearm does not possess the requisite character and reputation to do so, this Court must uphold the decision of a police chief or other proper official to revoke the license. Any suggestion by Appellant that the Board may not permanently revoke his license, or disapprove his application for a new license after one year, evinces a misinterpretation of the purposes of the Uniform Firearms Act. Based upon the foregoing, the Court affirms the order of the trial court.

Once SAF gets through suing New Jersey over the discretionary power officials have there over license applications this will, in my opinion, be easily challenged as unconstitutional in court.

If you're having an issue with this, I'd suggest contacting SAF, they may be interesting in pursuing this issue in PA as well.

[MDJschool]

I don't think the Tsokas, Harris, Garder trifuckta is going to be dispositive for character and reputation proof if you can provide a good argument for the fact that there's no point in putting two words in where they both mean the same thing (as these appellate courts are treating them.) Also, don't forget to say at the court of common pleas level that you failed to receive noticed exactly as required by statute, as Tsokas apparently did.

I started writing a response to this post but it was based on 6109(i), then I reread the OP who spoke of a denial. The fact is that you can be denied for the same (e)(1) reason repeatedly, but the sheriff has to perform an investigation per EACH application, as required by 6109(d), (e)(1), and (g) (it's repeated over and over again so sheriffs and chiefs of police can get it through their thick skulls.) That means a sheriff has to examine both character and reputation each time there is application, and determine that it shows a likelihood that one will act in a manner dangerous to public safety.

Here is what I typed before, I have no time now to fix it and add the rest of what I was going on about. I'll come back later.

My belief has historically been that the legislature bounded the minimum terms of due process under the Pennsylvania Constitution for license revocation by requiring certain acts to create a minimally competent revocation. If a sheriff sends someone a blank piece of paper, in his own mind intending it to be a revocation, it is hard to believe it is a revocation, to the point that there is nothing to appeal because it is simply not a revocation. I expect a revocation to meet the minimum terms of § 6109(i) and due process, drawing the line between what is simply not a revocation and what might be a revocation but which contains an error of law or abuse of discretion. The minimum terms I find in 6109(i) are that there must be 6109(e)(1) reason for revocation, that there must be good cause (i.e. the sufficient facts that meet the reason) for revocation, that the (e)(1) reason must be stated as required by (i), that the good cause must be stated on the revocation notice because due process requires notice of the action and must provide sufficient ability to provide objections, that the written notice is sent by certified mail, and that the PSP is notified. The truth is that this is all quite simple and it is a wonder how any (and many) sheriffs fail so hard to carry out the provisions.

However, I suspect more often than not that judges will say that sending a licensee anything in any manner covers federal due process, whether or not that is true. Some judges have even ignored the requirements of 6109(i) and due process under the PA Constitution, for example in Young v. Hoke, 964 A.2d 986 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2009) (unpublished), appeal denied, 603 Pa. 698, 983 A.2d 731 (2009)..

Because there is significant possibility that revocations must be appealed within 30 days (from what point of the revocation, who knows, from a judge's perspective anyway - the day the sheriff imagines it? when he sends it? when the first certified mail notice reaches the licensee's mailbox? when he's actually in receipt of the envelope? when he actually turns in his license within 5 days as required by (i)?) and because of the way judges seem to treat the law,

[Sleeeper]

Thank you MDJ....


As far as i see the sherrif did NOT do any investigation but just used old paperwork and a letter sent to the applicant the previous year personally with highlighted reasons as to why he would not issue the LTCF. As far as the C&R goes i do not see how one can misuse this to his power especially when the applicant has signed papers from various local law inforcement officers in their own community from LEO's whom actually know this persons character and reputation.

All the sheriff sees in that person on paper, so how can one get away with that? Doing no in depth investigation into their C&R and on top of that sending a non certified letter. Just does not seem legal and some i see do agree with me.

I was just a little unclear about Judicial reveiw 6114 and if the apllicant can be denied time and time over again for the same thing, even with a good record and statements from local officials as well....

[MDJschool]

As far as i see the sherrif did NOT do any investigation but just used old paperwork and a letter sent to the applicant the previous year personally with highlighted reasons as to why he would not issue the LTCF. As far as the C&R goes i do not see how one can misuse this to his power especially when the applicant has signed papers from various local law inforcement officers in their own community from LEO's whom actually know this persons character and reputation.

All the sheriff sees in that person on paper, so how can one get away with that? Doing no in depth investigation into their C&R and on top of that sending a non certified letter. Just does not seem legal and some i see do agree with me.

I was just a little unclear about Judicial reveiw 6114 and if the apllicant can be denied time and time over again for the same thing, even with a good record and statements from local officials as well....

If this applicant is being denied 'time and time over again', how many times has he appealed the denial to the Court of Common Pleas? Why would he expect to get satisfaction from a recalcitrant sheriff if he does nothing in response to the repeated denials?

There is judicial review, so take it (with or without a lawyer). The only (most obvious) penalties for doing so would be that the year 'bar' (which I'm not sure is a bar on the sheriff, but rather only creates grounds for mandamus after a year tolls) begins upon the judge's final determination, rather than the sheriff's, and that certain information may come out in the court of proceedings that could become public record (although I wonder if 18 Pa.C.S. 6111(i) would preclude that.)

The applicant ought to consider a letter to the sheriff and his solicitor, excerpting the specific duties of the sheriff each time application is made, pointing out the most specific duties pertaining to the current errors such as failing to investigate both character and reputation and failing to issue notice by certified letter. The letter should conclude by saying that --
"If any county officer neglects or refuses to perform any duty imposed on him by . . . the provisions of any other act of Assembly . . . or other provision of law, he shall, for each such neglect or refusal, be guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction thereof, shall be sentenced to pay a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars ($500)." 16 P.S. 411, 16 P.S. 3411. "It is not essential to a removal that the public official be validly convicted of the common-law offenses of malfeasance or misconduct in office. A removal is justified where the officer has been convicted of the violation of a statute which commands the performance of a positive, ministerial duty of his office. The Constitution is the voice of the people; . . . [t]heir self-executing mandate must be complied with, whether or not there is statutory authority for the removal[.]" Com. v. Knox, 94 A.2d 128 (Pa.Super. 1953).
that the sheriff may also be subjected to violations of the Uniform Firearms Act under 18 Pa.C.S. 6119,
and that the applicant will pursue the prosecution of these crimes and the removal of the sheriff from office should the sheriff refuse to comply with the law.

The applicant should then consider setting out his demands for compliance. Remember that a sheriff has 45 days from application to issue or refuse to issue a license, and that applicant has 30 days from ??? to appeal. I would suggest in the letter that for the remaining days the applicant believe he has to appeal, that, less a few of those, should say that for X number of days applicant will pretend that first letter, which did not comply with the law and due process under the PA Constitution as circumscribed for licensing under § 6109, was not a revocation, and that the sheriff has those days to do his duty under 6109(d) and to issue or refuse to issue the license by the date certain, providing a letter by certified mail with all of the data required by 6109(g).

In the meanwhile, the applicant should be preparing his appeal, since the sheriff is not expected to go above and beyond even if he were to comply with the basic elements of the section, and the applicants should be preparing to appeal within the 30 days of the original, unlawful notice.

You seem to understand that there are differences between character and reputation as you note 'various local law inforcement officers in their own community from LEO's whom actually know this person'. A person can have a virtuous character but a reputation sullied without reason, or a wretched character of which his community is unaware. To me, 6109(e)(1)(i) demands the character itself must be discovered and the reputation known by his community must also be discovered. I'm not sure that I could say that the character and reputation evidence must conclude the exact same thing as to the behavior and conduct of an individual; however, each must show a likelihood that the applicant will act in a manner dangerous to public safety. Unfortunately, the abuse of the character and reputation clause has gone so far that courts do not even believe Pennsylvania is a shall-issue state: "Like the Dance Hall Act, both the plain language of section 6109 of the Uniform Firearms Act and case law interpreting this provision make clear that the licensing body, here the City, enjoys broad discretion in both issuing and revoking firearm licenses. The breadth of the discretion conferred to the City under § 6109 is perhaps best evidenced by the clauses prohibiting the issuance and providing for the revocation of a firearm license to "an individual whose character and reputation is such that the individual would be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety."" Potts v. City of Philadelphia, 224 F.Supp.2d 919, 941 (E.D.Pa. 2002).

When it is every branch of government that contains the lawbreakers, it is an uphill battle. But the applicant is simply not going to receive his license without engaging in the battle.