Mind Teaser: Permits issued to Canadian citizen with Canadian carry permit?

**danp** · March 26th, 2007, 02:49 PM

Honestly, this is more of a question for if you guys really feel like flexing your brains. I do not intend to make an issue out of it anytime soon, I think we'd have to be pretty darn bored to pursue this. However I personally find it extremely interesting from a legal standpoint.

Situation:

Guy lives in Ontario and has a Canadian permit to carry firearms during his occupation of prospecting in the Canadian wilderness.
Guy already has a non-resident permit from New Hampshire.
Guy wants a non-resident permit from Pennsylvania.
Sheriff's he's contacted refuse
Pennsylvania Attorney General's Office says he should legally be able to get a permit but defers to Sheriff's and admits they'll probably be very confused.

Questions:

When the UFA says non-residents must have a similar permit from their state of residence, how do you define a state?
Would his somewhat restricted Canadian permit be considered similar?

I'm sure there are other questions but man, this one kind of warped my mind for many reasons. Hell when he first contacted me I told him it wouldn't be possible to do because he didn't have a permit regardless of how a 'state' is defined to which he replied with a scan of his. I didn't even know it was possible to get any form of carry permit in Canada.

I've attached a scan of his permit with his name blanked out for curiosity reasons and a scan of the letter he received from the AG's office.

**Rule10b5** · March 27th, 2007, 01:08 PM

State means "State that is a member of the United States." That's one of those words that can only mean one thing -- Canada, nor its provinces, are states.

That pretty much addresses 1, and by extension moots #2.

Here's where it gets interesting -- the DAG is right, there is nothing that prevents issuance.

But here is why I'd argue that he's wrong (if the Canadian hired me) -- he doesn't go far enough.

First, look at the language of the statute:

6109(e)(1) "A license to carry a firearm shall be for the purpose of carrying a firearm concealed on or about one's person or in a vehicle and shall be issued if, after an investigation not to exceed 45 days, it appears that the applicant is an individual concerning whom no good cause exists to deny the license. A license shall not be issued to any of the following:"

The statute says, as written, that a license shall be issued, unless a disqualifying factor exists. It doesn't say that you need to meet one of the conditions of the statute to get a license -- it says if you meet one of the disqualifiers, you're disqualified.

Disqualifying factors are listed. So, take a look at the factors -- is there any factor on the list that could apply to our Canadian?

If this guy has a permit for anything in Canada, he's as squeaky clean as they come. That rules out factors (i)-(viii) & (xi)-(xiii). If he's applying from Canada, he can't be illegally in the U.S. That rules out (x). As Canada isn't a state, that rules out (ix).

So, he does not fit with any of the disqualifying factors, therefore, a license "shall be issued" to him unless there is some other "good cause."

Simply being Canadian isn't good cause.

It's much the same situation where an applicant comes from a state that doesn't issue permits. Someone from Illinois can get a PA non-resident permit, no problem. Someone from HI is screwed, because it is at least theoretically possible to get a permit (but it'll never happen) so he's out under factor (ix).

Tell your friend to copy the letter from the DAG, write an explanation, and then send it to Denny Nau. I'll bet dollars to donuts that he gets his permit.

**danp** · March 27th, 2007, 02:05 PM

Denny Nau actually sent him his application/money back, although that was before he had the letter.

That summary is pretty fascinating though, the nuances of the language make the difference. So my understanding then is that if you do not live in the US you can receive a permit without holding a permit of any type, correct?

**GunLawyer001** · March 27th, 2007, 02:12 PM

Although "state" traditionally refers to any sovereign entity (so a "stateless person" has no nationality, a "head of state" can be Castro or the Queen of England), in the context of the UFA it clearly contemplates one of the 50 United States, that's why it uses the term "another state", like Pennsylvania.

If I were representing the sheriff, I'd defend a denial by pointing out that a non-resident alien couldn't legally acquire a firearm in the USA anyway, so it's something of a mystery why he'd want a carry permit. There may be a way to temporarily import a handgun from Canada for hunting purposes, but then he'd be hunting and wouldn't need the permit.

Just between us, I'm not sure how keen I am on people from other states and countries picking up PA LTCF's just for fun, or for use in reciprocating states. The more of these out there, the more likely that some wacko from Guatamala with a valid PA license shoots a Game Warden or a nun, and the Democrats in the PA House have an excuse to impose restrictions. They really should be limited to PA residents, or aliens permanently residing in PA.

**Rule10b5** · March 27th, 2007, 02:24 PM

Originally Posted by GunLawyer001

If I were representing the sheriff, I'd defend a denial by pointing out that a non-resident alien couldn't legally acquire a firearm in the USA anyway, so it's something of a mystery why he'd want a carry permit. There may be a way to temporarily import a handgun from Canada for hunting purposes, but then he'd be hunting and wouldn't need the permit.

Very good point -- how's he going to get the handgun in to the U.S. in the first place? I hadn't thought about that one.

On a related point: Doesn't 18 U.S.C. 922(y) allow purchase by aliens, provided they are not illegal or if they possess a "nonimmigrant visa?"

Canadians on a hunting trip are surely legal under the first prong of 922(y) -- they don't need a Visa, they can just cross the border on a naked passport.

If they're here legally, then can't they buy a firearm (I'm setting aside state law stuff)?

Or perhaps they can't buy handguns, because of Brady?

If that's the case, then they can still buy long guns, but long guns aren't firearms for the purposes of licenses to carry in PA, are they, so we're back to your first point -- how do they get a handgun to carry?

Such a fun hypothetical...

**GunLawyer001** · March 27th, 2007, 03:48 PM

Most of this is new territory for me, I've never had a Canadian apply for a LTCF.

I DID have a resident alien apply in MontCo, the Sheriff had a policy of declining to even hand over the application. The guy was eligible, but the Sheriff just didn't like them fuzzy little foreigners, so he avoided that annoying apply/denied/appeal and "explain to a judge" process by refusing to allow him to apply.

In my conversation with the Sheriff, he stated that "the voters elected me to apply the law as I see fit, I don't answer to Harrisburg." Reminiscent of Al Haig "in charge here at the White House" after Reagan was shot, regardless of what that pesky Constitution said about the order of succession.

The client declined to fund any in-depth legal activity, so it went nowhere. I don't know what the current policy is in MontCo.