LTCF Character/Reputation Challenge - Have you been convicted of harassment?

[SigForLife]

I am currently working on a revocation appeal based on character and reputation. The revocation was based on a harassment conviction of almost a year prior. I think we will win on the fact that the revocation was erroneous but in case the Judge finds otherwise, we have raised several Constitutional challenges.

We have already raised due process violations (there is good US Supreme Court jurisprudence to show that 6109 violates due process, because not only is there no pre-deprivation hearing but also no post deprivation hearing), and equal protections. For equal protection, we need to show that different Sheriffs (or Philadelphia Police Chief) are interpreting and applying character and reputation differently.

So, if any of you have either applied for a LTCF and been granted it, after having incurred a summary harassment conviction or had a LTCF and it was not revoked as a result of a summary harassment conviction, I am asking that you consider contacting me off forum, if you would potentially be interested in testifying or at least speaking to me about the timing of your conviction and your current license status. We are in a good pro-gun county and may finally have an opportunity to challenge the nebulous character and reputation clause, if the Sheriff appeals or we lose.

[MDJschool]

I am currently working on a revocation appeal based on character and reputation. The revocation was based on a harassment conviction of almost a year prior. I think we will win on the fact that the revocation was erroneous but in case the Judge finds otherwise, we have raised several Constitutional challenges.

We have already raised due process violations (there is good US Supreme Court jurisprudence to show that 6109 violates due process, because not only is there no pre-deprivation hearing but also no post deprivation hearing), and equal protections. For equal protection, we need to show that different Sheriffs (or Philadelphia Police Chief) are interpreting and applying character and reputation differently.

Is a strong character and reputation statutory construction argument prepared? Basing a revocation solely on a harassment conviction cannot possibly apply as evidence of the both of them, and the court has glossed this point time and time again either because the attorneys haven't made the arguments, or the judges outright ignored them. "‘Character’ and ‘reputation’ are not synonymous terms. The former is what a man is, the latter is what he is supposed to be . . ." Hopkins v. Tate, 99 A. 210, 211 (Pa. 1916). And of course, in other proceedings, reputation evidence is limited to a person who has a knowledge of the subject's community and has can testify that he has heard words about the subject.

Because of Potts v. City of Philadelphia, 224 F.Supp.2d 919 (Pa.E.D. 2002) which of course itself is not binding, do you plan to mention Spinelli v. City of New York, 579 F.3d 160 (2nd Cir. 2009) and Kuck v. Danaher, 600 F.3d 159 (2nd Cir. 2010)?

[SigForLife]

Yes, the Sheriff (well, his solicitor because I doubt the Sheriff in this occasion would have made this error) actually argued that PA is a "may" issue state. Our brief already deals with the language of the statute, the Rules of Statutory Construction, Black's definition of "shall" and the Legislative Journal of the amendment in 1988 of 6109, which clearly establishes it is shall issue. We have also already cited Hopkins and mentioned Spinelli.

The best part is the criminal record of the individual who complained to the Sheriff's office, and who had also been cited with harassment at the same time as my client. His criminal history, and yes, those are crimes which involve dishonesty, is so long, that in the past 6 years, he has spent more time in jail then out.

If you have time, you may want to check out Barry v. Barchi, 443 U.S. 55 (1979).

[IronSight]

Yes, the Sheriff (well, his solicitor because I doubt the Sheriff in this occasion would have made this error) actually argued that PA is a "may" issue state. Our brief already deals with the language of the statute, the Rules of Statutory Construction, Black's definition of "shall" and the Legislative Journal of the amendment in 1988 of 6109, which clearly establishes it is shall issue. We have also already cited Hopkins and mentioned Spinelli.

The best part is the criminal record of the individual who complained to the Sheriff's office, and who had also been cited with harassment at the same time as my client. His criminal history, and yes, those are crimes which involve dishonesty, is so long, that in the past 6 years, he has spent more time in jail then out.

If you have time, you may want to check out Barry v. Barchi, 443 U.S. 55 (1979).

Did the solicitor put that argument in writing, and is that available for the public?

[Mosinshooter762]

I am currently working on a revocation appeal based on character and reputation. The revocation was based on a harassment conviction of almost a year prior. I think we will win on the fact that the revocation was erroneous but in case the Judge finds otherwise, we have raised several Constitutional challenges.

We have already raised due process violations (there is good US Supreme Court jurisprudence to show that 6109 violates due process, because not only is there no pre-deprivation hearing but also no post deprivation hearing), and equal protections. For equal protection, we need to show that different Sheriffs (or Philadelphia Police Chief) are interpreting and applying character and reputation differently.

So, if any of you have either applied for a LTCF and been granted it, after having incurred a summary harassment conviction or had a LTCF and it was not revoked as a result of a summary harassment conviction, I am asking that you consider contacting me off forum, if you would potentially be interested in testifying or at least speaking to me about the timing of your conviction and your current license status. We are in a good pro-gun county and may finally have an opportunity to challenge the nebulous character and reputation clause, if the Sheriff appeals or we lose.

I don't know how helpful this will be, but Philadelphia appears to be the most abusive with using the (dangerous) character and reputation clause. There have been reports on these forums, and in other gun social circles, of the PPD revoking licenses for numerous things including excessive contact with the police, or not informing the officer about carrying, or after having firearms stolen.

There have been numerous inquiries on these forums about applying for a License to Carry Firearms with a summary offense conviction. I'm sure there is someone here who could help.