Removal of PA Character and Reputation Clause for an LTCF

Today, Representative Russ Diamond and 20 pro-Second Amendment/Article 1, Section 21 Representatives submitted a new bill, HB 918, which would remove the character and reputation / good cause provision of 18 Pa.C.S. 6109. Many issuing authorities, like Philadelphia and Monroe have utilized the character and reputation provision to prevent law-abiding individuals from obtaining an LTCF.

Representative Diamond’s memo details how a young lady, who has no criminal or mental health background,  was granted an LTCF in one county and after moving to another county, denied her renewal. (Although it was in a different county, since she had a valid LTCF at the time of application, the law supports that such was a renewal, even though with a different issuing authority.) Furthermore, Representative Diamond’s memo explains how the character and reputation clause is violative of Article 2, Section 1 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, as it is an unlawful delegation of power, supported by legions of PA Supreme Court case law.

Please support HB 918 by contacting your Pennsylvania Representatives and requesting that they co-sponsor or support HB 918. Together, we can remove this unconstitutional provision that permits the unequal application of the law and preempt issuing authorities from revoking resident’s Article 1, Section 21 rights!

Advertisements

2 Comments

Filed under Firearms Law, Pennsylvania Firearms Law

2 responses to “Removal of PA Character and Reputation Clause for an LTCF

  1. we should also support our other bills.
    http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/billinfo/BillInfo.cfm?syear=2017&sind=0&body=H&type=B&bn=170
    “Constitutional Carry of a Firearm, former HB 230 of 2015-16 Session”

    Like

  2. Centre County Public Enemy #1

    We had pure constitutional carry for the first 74 years from 1776. Then special local acts and alter a statewide general act, through the 1860s-1880s, prohibiting the carry of concealed deadly weapons “feloniously and maliciously . . . with intent to do bodily harm” came about. We got the UFA with mens-rea-free free prior-restraint licensing section in 1931, wherein carry of a concealed firearm as an offense was completely divorced from imminent assault.
    We still have constitutional carry today, because the very nation of constitutional carry is that the law reflects the nature of the superior power residing within the dictates of the people themselves. Would anyone wish to change this, it would probably take not an amendment but a full blown convention. So, there is a way for naysayers to get what they want; they simply refuse to use it, and resort to the unlawful, the subversion and the subterfuge.
    Joshua Prince and I proved there were malefactors amongst the judiciary by losing facial challenges to sec. 6109 and sec. 6106, respectively (also sec. 913, which we managed to live without anything like it for 220 years,) leaving the Superior and Commonwealth Courts to herald their offensive statements that this UFA garbage is constitutional . It ought to be a sign, that they should rule as such but that the Supreme Court of Pa. should deny the both of us constitutional challenges which are issues of first impression. Then they take 100 search and seizure cases each year which present nothing new. Do you see a problem?
    It’s an inherent and indefeasible right to a acquire and possess property. It’s a right to bear arms, one not to be questioned. How could it possibly be, that any offense should be define as possession of any arm, or that bearing them at all or in any particular way can be allowed to question the right to carry? It’s a joke and it’s being violently shoved down our throats right out in the sunlight. And we assent to it. Our misprisions of felony, our failures to interdict, are why we have this culture of damnation.
    Repealing unconstitutional acts is assuredly a requirement of each legislator under his/her oath or affirmation to support, uphold, and defend both constitutions But it isn’t necessary to repeal that which was void from its outset, to be able to treat it as if it has no effect. We fail to lobby the judiciary, by making and taking our own cases to the judges, by forcing public officials to answer constitutional questions during their own defending criminal actions, informing and lobbying judges by brief as friends of the court, by appealing all that which is wrong, by memorializing complaints to those judicial officials with supervisory power (court admin, president judge of judicial district, court admin of pa, supreme court justice) and raising issues to the rules committees and bringing administrative orders out in the fresh air instead of allowing them to be self-serving ex-parte masturbatory accomplishments from judges’ chambers… If a legislator is in office for 1 year and has put forth 0 bills to repeal anything, lobby the legislators to impeach; same goes for failure within a year to vote for any bill repealing something. It is impossible at this juncture to keep the oath or affirmation and not be attentively and judiciously repealing the crap out of our endless collection of Acts. “Gotta repeal them to read them”
    Former Centre County Sheriff Denny Nau allegedly ‘revoked’ my LTCF in 2008 but failed to put any 6109(e)(1) reason on the purported notice. Despite all of the litigation that followed, he never reissued a proper revocation, and that is probably because he did not have the good cause necessary to meet any of the 13-ish statutory reasons for revocation/denial. Maybe, just maybe, he was going for a character and reputation clause revocation, but when confronted with a checkbox for that exact clause on his notice to the PSP,, he avoided checking that box and instead wrote in some garbage on a blank line. Mind blown. He knew better, but he was just offended. Well, his failure makes an open-shut case for Neglect or Refusal to Do Duties under the County Code, a misdemeanor in office. It also meets the definition of Official Oppression under the Crimes Code. So I filed a private criminal complaint, Sep 25, 2016. Heard nothing for a month. Complaint sent again and signed for on Nov 7, 2016, certified mail. Personally served an ADA on Jan. 23 in open court. For over 6 months, I have heard NOTHING from ANYONE. I even filed Right to Know requests in order to prove they had the complaints in hand, and despite the clear and obvious exception (for priv. crim. complaints) to the exception (barring release of criminal investigative information), they denied access to everything under both criminal and noncriminal investigative records exceptions. Further, they stated that had no policies whatsoever on handling private or police criminal complaints. Based on info collected over 8 years of litigation, the former Sheriff is liable for felony perjury violation of oath of office under the County Code, but I was giving the DA a softball freebie as a test that this system could work. My goal is to serve the elected DA personally, and in 2 weeks, file the complaint with same or similar offenses against the DA. If no reasons are given, the delay is unreasonable. I must prove this can work, and train this office to take complaints, so that others may enjoy being involved in the criminal justice process, our right and duty. 2 weeks after the DA complaint, I would appeal the former-Sheriff complaint to the Court of Common Pleas, and if necessary up the appellate courts I would seek a private counsel to prosecute in place of the DA where the DA refuses to prosecute and I would try to help guide the hand of the court in selecting a competent attorney to prosecute the DA, per the County Code.
    If the Character and Reputation clause is unconstitutional, every use of it should be met with a criminal complaint. If license as prior restraint, or prohibition of licensed carry, is unconstitutional, every use or requirement should be met with a criminal complaint or arrest.
    By the way, “good cause” clause is not the problem. It is a requirement of sufficient evidence in the hands of the sheriff to proceed upon a revocation; it does not allow a revocation for something outside of the collection of statutory reasons, because sentence three doesn’t make sense under 6109(i) unless sentence two are the only ‘reasons’ to be used. “Good cause” isn’t “reasons”. Q.E.D. See Spinelli v. City of New York (2nd Cir) for the breakdown on this; constitutionally, a revocation should contain not conclusory charges alone, but instead the set of facts which reflect the evidence for what is charged, coupled with an explanation of the charges and pointers to the law so reflecting. Only in this way is there anything to appeal, because one must have objections to make objections. And because the legislature has given a specific set of rules and process for revocation, what defines what is or is not a revocation, is meeting all of those requirements — if met, a revocation, if missing any particular thing, no revocation at all and not appealable therefor.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s