Tag Archives: CWP

Delaware Changes Concealed Weapons Agreements (Not for the Better)

DE_StateIcon.png

UPDATE (2/17/17 8:42 AM): New Blog with current information related to the change in position from the Attorney General’s Office can be found here.

UPDATE (2/15/17 8:40 PM): After publication of the below article, it appears the language on the Delaware Attorney General’s page was changed to remove the information indicating that Delaware would no longer recognize non-resident permits. I already have a call in to the Attorney General’s Office requesting clarification and will post an update once I receive a response.

 

Delaware’s Attorney General recently updated their website to reflect the changes in their Reciprocity Agreements.

Previously, the website had listed reciprocity agreements with:

ALASKA

ARIZONA

ARKANSAS

COLORADO

FLORIDA

IDAHO
(Enhanced Permits Only)

KENTUCKY

MAINE

MICHIGAN

MISSOURI

NEW MEXICO

NORTH CAROLINA

NORTH DAKOTA

OHIO

OKLAHOMA

SOUTH DAKOTA
(Enhanced Permits Only)

TENNESSEE

TEXAS

UTAH

VIRGINIA
(Reciprocity with VA will be revoked as of 3/1/2016)

WEST VIRGINIA

Now, the website reflects the following changes:

ALASKA

ARIZONA

ARKANSAS

COLORADO

FLORIDA

IDAHO
(Enhanced Permits Only)

KENTUCKY

MAINE

MICHIGAN

MISSOURI

NEW MEXICO

NORTH CAROLINA

NORTH DAKOTA
(Class 1 permits only)

OHIO

OKLAHOMA

SOUTH DAKOTA
(Enhanced Permits Only)

TENNESSEE

TEXAS

UTAH

WEST VIRGINIA

Further, Delaware will no longer recognize non-resident permits issued by any state beginning on September 23, 2017.

As a number of Pennsylvanians have acquired either Florida or Utah non-resident permits in order to be able to carry a firearm in Delaware, it is important they be aware of this impending change as to not unlawfully carry a firearm in Delaware after the change becomes effective. While it is possible for the Attorney General of Pennsylvania (or the state in which you reside) to enter into negotiations with Delaware to secure a reciprocity agreement, it is likely that unless the state has a training requirement to obtain a license, Delaware will not enter into an agreement.

Perhaps the solution to the problem lies in the National Concealed Carry Reciprocity Bill that is currently in committee in the House. I’d encourage you to contact your Representatives and ask them to support the bill.

Do you have a non-resident concealed carry permit and find this article helpful? Be sure to pass it along to a friend who may benefit from the information by using the buttons below. Don’t forget to like Firearms Industry Consulting Group on Facebook by clicking the “Like” button on the right.

 

screen-shot-2016-12-14-at-8-54-53-pm

Don’t forget, ballots for the NRA Board of Directors have been arriving. If you have not already voted, please consider voting for me. Voting members are those that are Life members or those who have been annual members for the past 5 consecutive years. If you have not yet received a ballot and you are a qualified member, you may contact membership services to acquire one.

ak4nra_logo-01small

Advertisements

16 Comments

Filed under Firearms Law, Uncategorized

Monumental Decision from Commonwealth Court on Confidentiality of License to Carry Firearms Applicant Information

On Friday, May 20th, 2016, the Commonwealth Court issued a monumental decision in John Doe, et al., v. Franklin County, et al., 1634 C.D. 2015, a case that I litigated, where it declared that the disclosure of license to carry firearms (“LTCF”) applicant information to anyone other than law enforcement acting within the scope of their official duties or the applicant (or someone approved by the applicant) violates 18 Pa.C.S. 6111(i), which results in “civil damages in the amount of $ 1,000 per occurrence or three times the actual damages incurred as a result of the violation, whichever is greater, as well as reasonable attorney fees.”

In a 45 page decision, which reviewed, inter alia, the history of Section 6111(i), the constitutionality of its enactment, the Pennsylvania State Police’s own regulations relating to it and whether a Sheriff can claim High Public Official Immunity in relation to it, the Commonwealth Court declared

“any person, licensed dealer, State or local governmental agency or department” violates Section 6111(i) of the UFA by revealing an “applicant’s name or identity” to a person not (1) authorized to receive such information by statute; (2) involved in the operation or management of the sheriff’s office; (3) representing a law enforcement or criminal justice agency; or (4) otherwise authorized by an applicant. Any other interpretation of Section 6111(i) of the UFA where a License applicant’s confidentiality is not safeguarded would be inconsistent with the UFA’s purpose and structure.

The Court also found that Defendants’ challenge to the constitutionality of how Section 6111(i) was enacted was untimely whether under the doctrine of laches, as Plaintiffs argued, or whether under the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision in Sernovitz v. Dershaw. Accordingly, although Plaintiffs additionally argued that Section 6111(i) was constitutionally enacted, the Court stated that due to the failure of Defendants, or any other party, to bring a challenge regarding its enactment in the past 18 years, any challenge was now untimely.

Furthermore, the Court found that the Sheriff was not entitled to High Public Official Immunity pursuant to Section 6111(i) and therefore declined to consider whether High Public Official Immunity is unconstitutional pursuant to Art 1, Section 11 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, as Plaintiffs had additionally argued.

Unfortunately, although 18 Pa.C.S. 6109(h) explicitly states that $1.50 of the fee paid is for purposes of the issuing authority sending the renewal notice, the Court declined to find that a civil cause of action exists for a Sheriff’s failure to issue renewal notices. Although the Plaintiffs brought a common law claim for breach of fiduciary duties, the Court found the Defendants were protected from that claim by the Political Tort Claims Subdivision Act.

While I am disappointed with certain determinations of the Court, I was pleased to see that many of my arguments and research were utilized by the Court in its decision and that it reached the proper conclusion regarding the confidentiality of LTCF applicant information.

If your confidential LTCF information was disclosed in some manner, whether via postcard, sign-in sheet or otherwise, contact us today so we can discuss your rights. You can reach us at info@princelaw.com or 888-313-0416.

 

5 Comments

Filed under Firearms Law, Pennsylvania Firearms Law

Places in PA that Individuals are Prohibited from Carrying at or in, even with a License to Carry Firearms

The question frequently arises as to where an individual with a valid License to Carry Firearms (LTCF) may not carry his/her firearm. For purposes of this article, I will focus strictly on State law places and not the federal place that are prohibited.

1. Court Facilities – Pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S. 913 and individual may not carry a firearm in a court facility. A court facility is defined as “The courtroom of a court of record; a courtroom of a community court; the courtroom of a magisterial district judge; a courtroom of the Philadelphia Municipal Court; a courtroom of the Pittsburgh Magistrates Court; a courtroom of the Traffic Court of Philadelphia; judge’s chambers; witness rooms; jury deliberation rooms; attorney conference rooms; prisoner holding cells; offices of court clerks, the district attorney, the sheriff and probation and parole officers; and any adjoining corridors.” However, if conspicuous notice of this prohibition is not placed at the entrance of the court facility or the person does not have actual knowledge of the prohibition, that person cannot be charged with violating the law. Lastly, all court facilities must make lockers available for the checking of firearms and other dangerous items.

2. Casinos – Pursuant to Title 58 of the Pennsylvania Code, Part I, Chapter 44, Subsection 465a.13, an individual is prohibited from carrying a deadly weapon (firearm), stun gun, or other device designed to injure or incapacitate a person, within a licensed facility. However, the Code does provide that you can submit a written request to the Board for permission to carry deadly weapons. UPDATE: Attorney General Kathleen Kane issued an opinion that the Gaming Control Board’s regulation of firearms was preempted. Seehttps://blog.princelaw.com/2014/09/14/attorney-general-kanes-opinion-on-commonwealth-agencies-regulating-possession-of-firearms/

3. Elementary and Secondary School (both public and private) – Pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S. 912, an individual is prohibited from carrying on schools grounds and in school buildings. However, there is a defense to prosecution under this section of, “It shall be a defense that the weapon is possessed and used in conjunction with a lawful supervised school activity or course or is possessed for other lawful purpose.” Unfortunately, “other lawful purpose” is not defined and the courts have not weighed in on whether a valid LTCF is a lawful purpose. UPDATE: The Superior Court, en banc, acknowledged that an individual in entitled to the defense, where the individual lawfully possesses a lawful weapon for a lawful purpose (i.e. not an unlawful purpose). Seehttps://blog.princelaw.com/2017/02/16/the-goslin-decisions-impact-on-possessing-weapons-on-school-property/

4. Detention Facilities, Correctional Institutes, or Mental Hospitals – Pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S. 5122 and 61 Pa.C.S. 5902,  an individual cannot bring a weapon into a Detention Facility, Correctional Institute, or Mental Hospital.

5. Private Property – Pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S. 3503, where the individual is notified, either orally or in writing, that he/she is not permitted on the property with a firearm.

6. Certain Department of State Buildings – See, 49 Pa. Code 61.3.

7. Loaded Long Gun in a Vehicle – Pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S. 6106.1, it is unlawful to carry a loaded shotgun or rifle in one’s vehicle.

8. Veteran Affairs (VA) Facilities – Pursuant to 38 C.F.R. 1.218, it is unlawful to carry firearms, other dangerous or deadly weapons, or explosives, either openly or concealed, except for official purposes. This would also seemingly apply to National Cemeteries run by the VA. See, http://www.cem.va.gov, for a listing.

3 Comments

Filed under Firearms Law, Pennsylvania Firearms Law