Character and Reputation

[giant_g2]

Alright, y'all,

In the post-Bruen world, when (formerly) may-issue states are falling back *hard* on good moral character and the like in their permit applications to maintain their infringement on their subjects, where does PA stand with our character and reputation clause and/or where are we headed?

Inquiring minds...

I'm hoping that gets sorted out via a lawsuit the next time a sheriff (Philly, chesco, etc) revokes a LTCF because the person in question was a victim of a crime and had their gun stolen.

[Qtrborecrazy]

As GunLawyer has noted on many occasions, acts that do fit in with the full definition could be used, even if no charges or convictions occurred. Hopefully a good attorney would argue that fact in an appeal, but since this condition, like "habitual drunkard" were included in addition to the lists of specific criminal offenses that are prohibitors, the legislative intent seems clear.

Become a habitual pot smoker instead of a drunk and problem solved. I mean, isn’t that what everyone is doing nowadays and they want it legal?

[prospero1919]

Not having a daily updated state mandated social media account will count against you too.

Ironic - now people will have to get social media accounts to prove they are not harmful on social media. Sounds like a new business opportunity - brand new, never used, squeaky clean social media accounts at inflated prices - bonus - we also do counterfeit Covid and Monkeypox Vax Cards!

[4thdimension]

Well if you have a gun your character is flawed according to liberals. Only the cops that they hate should have them you know?

[Walleye Hunter]

My character has been assassinated and my reputation precedes me.

[stainless]

It's your social score and get ready for it. Jaywalking, poor credit, days late for work, etc will all be matrixed together.

That works well in Chinkvill. Coming to our hood soon.

[mobo215]

That online thing where you just typed that question.

I'm not sure if web forums count as 'social media', but it is troubling that I had to use a mainstream email address (Protonmail is not allowed to register here) AND I have to drop my VPN to log in to this site. Everybody seems to want some piece of personally identifiable information to participate.

I was able to register with Protonmail while connected to a VPN and did NOT have to provide any personally identifiable information such as a phone number. Going forward, forums such as these should consider allowing members to be more anonymous because you never know when your online activity can be used against you.

[Walleye Hunter]

I'm not sure if web forums count as 'social media', but it is troubling that I had to use a mainstream email address (Protonmail is not allowed to register here) AND I have to drop my VPN to log in to this site. Everybody seems to want some piece of personally identifiable information to participate.

I was able to register with Protonmail while connected to a VPN and did NOT have to provide any personally identifiable information such as a phone number. Going forward, forums such as these should consider allowing members to be more anonymous because you never know when your online activity can be used against you.

I barely know what a VPN is but I have seen some admin posts here about them and what is necessary to use them. Look under forum announcements and you might find some guidance there.

[ImminentDanger]

The statute says more than "character and reputation". It actually says, "An individual whose character and reputation is such that the individual would be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety."

With the liberal left (with the complicity of the national media) in charge of the legislative & judicial DICTIONARY, we are currently informed that the clear words of "shall not be infringed" and "shall not be questioned" do not NOW mean what they obviously meant 250 years ago. What they meant for the past 250 years is constantly under assault to be redefined as necessary to the liberal leftist cause.

When REALITY can be created, not just virtually, but actively, and people will eagerly live and react according to that created REALITY, then all those who dissent are in actual danger of being defined as "dangerous to public safety", and are themselves in danger of harm.

The Coronavirus PANIC has proven that can be done.

...

[Sgt.K]

The statute says more than "character and reputation". It actually says, "An individual whose character and reputation is such that the individual would be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety."

Emphasis added by me. It's very possible to be someone of "bad character or reputation" without meeting the additional threshold imposed. You might be a serial cheater in personal relationships, or have a gambling problem, or be a deadbeat parent who doesn't pay child support, but non of those, IMO, are the legal basis for denial/revocation.

As GunLawyer has noted on many occasions, acts that do fit in with the full definition could be used, even if no charges or convictions occurred. Hopefully a good attorney would argue that fact in an appeal, but since this condition, like "habitual drunkard" were included in addition to the lists of specific criminal offenses that are prohibitors, the legislative intent seems clear.

Whether or not that's actually constitutional has never been argued before SCOPA, as far as I know.

Oh, we (that's the global 'we', not the royal 'we') generally know what it says. Referring to it as the 'character and reputation clause' just makes it easy to specify that about which we speak. I am generally in agreement with you on the rest.