Tag Archives: license to carry firearms

PA Attorney General Reviews Reciprocity Agreements and Nixes Virginia

On Monday, PA Attorney General Josh Shapiro held a press conference wherein he “announced his office ha[d] completed an exhaustive review of concealed carry reciprocity agreements with all 49 other states, as required under Pennsylvania law.” Notably, the Attorney General’s website has been updated with a handy chart.

2000px-Seal_of_the_Attorney_General_of_Pennsylvania.svg

The announcement specified that Pennsylvania now recognizes the licenses of 29 other states (previously it was 28). Notably, Idaho and Alabama were added to the recognized states. However, Virginia was removed. As of May 16, 2018, Virginia residents will no longer be able to carry in Pennsylvania pursuant to a Virginia Concealed Handgun Permit.

Pouring salt into an already open wound, the Attorney General has also specified that non-resident permits will no longer be recognized in PA. Which means that in order to lawfully carry a concealed firearm in Pennsylvania, according to the Attorney General, you must be a resident of the state which has issued the license and be over twenty-one years of age.

There are two manners in which Pennsylvania recognizes reciprocity. The first is found in 18 Pa.C.S. § 6106(b)(15) and allows the Attorney General to recognize, without a written agreement, another state’s license. This is predicated on the condition that the other state recognizes Pennsylvania License to Carry Firearms (“LTCF”) and that the laws governing firearms in that state are sufficiently similar to Pennsylvania’s.

The other manner is by written agreement. 18 Pa.C.S. § 6019(k)(1) provides:

The Attorney General shall have the power and duty to enter into reciprocity agreements with other states providing for the mutual recognition of a license to carry a firearm issued by the Commonwealth and a license or permit to carry a firearm issued by the other state. To carry out this duty, the Attorney General is authorized to negotiate reciprocity agreements and grant recognition of a license or permit to carry a firearm issued by another state.

Virginia and Pennsylvania had entered into a written reciprocity agreement on January 3, 2007. The agreement was amended on March 15, 2013 during the tenure of disgraced former Attorney General, now convicted felon, Kathleen Kane. Notably, the statute is silent as to the ability of the Attorney General to rescind a reciprocity agreement. However, that does not appear to have stopped Attorney General Shapiro.

Moreover, Section 6109(k)(2) requires that “[t]he Attorney General shall report to the General Assembly within 180 days of the effective date of this paragraph and annually thereafter concerning the agreements which have been consummated under this subsection.” (emphasis added). Based on the plain language of the statute, it would seem the General Assembly wished to be apprised of the states with which the Attorney General entered into written reciprocity agreements on an annual basis. Further, this would imply that if the General Assembly believed the agreement to be inappropriate, it could act to revoke its status, rather than leaving that to the discretion of the Attorney General.

Below is a list of states that Pennsylvania recognizes the permits of. You can find more information in the PDF provided by the Office of the Attorney General here.

Screen Shot 2018-04-18 at 6.53.49 PM

screen-shot-2016-12-14-at-8-54-53-pm
Did you find this blog article helpful or informative? 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.
Advertisements

3 Comments

Filed under Firearms Law, Pennsylvania Firearms Law, Uncategorized

Monroe County Sheriff Martin is ENJOINED from Enforcing Unlawful License to Carry Firearms Requirements

On January 16, 2018, Wyoming County President Judge Russell Shurtleff, specially presiding, issued an Order unsealing a December 13, 2017 Decision and Order in the John Doe, et al. v. Monroe County, et al. case, which granted a preliminary injunction against the Monroe County Sheriff’s Department and Sheriff Todd Martin in relation to their unlawful license to carry firearms (LTCF) requirements. As our viewers are aware from a prior Pocono Record article, I am representing the Plaintiffs in this matter.

The preliminary injunction precludes the Monroe County Sheriff from:

  1. Sending out postcards advising applicants of their license renewal, denial or acceptance;
  2. Requiring applicants to submit Local 1% Earned Income Tax Forms, Federal Income Tax Returns, Pa. State Tax Returns or Real Estate Tax Bills;
  3. Requiring written documentation from an applicant’s doctor as to the specific nature of applicant’s disabilities, as well as, any medications the applicant may be taking due to the disability;
  4. Requiring a copy of the applicant’s Social Security Statement;
  5. Requiring a copy of an applicant’s DD-214 (military discharge papers);
  6. Requiring any references to be Monroe County residents; and,
  7. Requiring an applicant to provide a list of medications that he or she may be prescribed.

If you or someone you know has had their confidential license to carry firearms applicant information disclosed or are being required to provide information for a license to carry firearms, which is not provided for in the licensing provision, contact Firearms Industry Consulting Group today to discuss YOUR rights and legal options.

 


Firearms Industry Consulting Group® (FICG®) is a registered trademark and division of Civil Rights Defense Firm, P.C., with rights and permissions granted to Prince Law Offices, P.C. to use in this article.

3 Comments

Filed under Firearms Law, Pennsylvania Firearms Law

Donald Trump Jr.’s Confidential Firearm License Information is Disclosed by Pennsylvania Judge

The Time-Tribune is reporting that Lackawanna County Judge Thomas Munley disclosed on Wednesday that Donald Trump Jr. applied for a license to carry firearms (LTCF), after Lackawanna County Sheriff Mark McAndrew refused to disclose the purpose of Mr. Trump’s visit, likely due to the confidentiality provisions of all LTCF applicant information.

18 Pa.C.S. § 6111(i) provides in pertinent part:

(i) Confidentiality.–All information provided by the … applicant, including, but not limited to, the … applicant’s name or identity, furnished by … any applicant for a license to carry a firearm as provided by section 6109 shall be confidential and not subject to public disclosure. In addition to any other sanction or penalty imposed by this chapter, any person, licensed dealer, State or local governmental agency or department that violates this subsection shall be liable 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.

As many of our viewers are aware, a little over a year ago, I was successful in John Doe, et al. v. County of Franklin, et al,. in having the Commonwealth Court declare that the use of unenveloped postcards, where LTCF applicant information was specified on the postcard, was a violation of Section 6111(i). In fact, the court specifically held that:

“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.

It is unknown why Judge Munley felt it necessary to disclose Mr. Trump’ confidential information and reason for being at the Sheriff’s Department.

If you or someone you know has had their confidential license to carry firearms applicant information disclosed, contact Firearms Industry Consulting Group today to discuss YOUR rights and legal options.

 


Firearms Industry Consulting Group® (FICG®) is a registered trademark and division of Civil Rights Defense Firm, P.C., with rights and permissions granted to Prince Law Offices, P.C. to use in this article.

 

 

5 Comments

Filed under Firearms Law, Pennsylvania Firearms Law

PSP Issues Notice to Act 235 Agents Regarding the Anderson Decision

As our viewers are aware, in August of this year, a devastating en banc opinion was issued by the Pennsylvania Superior Court in Commonwealth v. Anderson, where it ruled that an individual who is Act 235 certified is not entitled to carry a firearm to and from work, absent a license to carry firearms, regardless of the language in Act 235 that requires a private security guard carry his/her certificate when “on duty or going to and from duty and carrying a lethal weapon.”

Today, the Pennsylvania State Police issued a notice to all Act 235 agents informing them of the decision and stating that it would be advisable for them to obtain a license to carry firearms. Specifically, the email notification declares:

Dear _____,
Please note that in August 2017, the Pennsylvania Superior Court issued an opinion in Commonwealth v. Anderson, ___ A.3d ___ (Aug. 23, 2017), and ruled that an Act 235 certification is not a substitute for a license to carry. Agents are reminded of the Regulations governing Act 235, at Section 21.26(d), which state “The issuance of a certification card to a privately employed agent does not grant the agent the right or privilege to carry, possess, own, or have under his control a firearm contrary to 18 Pa.C.S. § § 6101—6120 (relating to Uniform Firearms Act).” In light of this ruling, it may be prudent for agents to obtain a license to carry their firearms while in an off-duty status, including traveling to and from places of employment, or in instances where agents are required to conceal a firearm on duty, including loaded carry inside of a vehicle. Agents should direct questions regarding this to their employers.
Sincerely,

Major Troy S. Lokhaiser
Executive Director

As I originally stated in the blog article from August 24th, if you are an Act 235 security guard, it is now imperative that you obtain a license to carry firearms, immediately. Likewise, if you are a law enforcement officer, including constable, sheriff, deputy or police officer, even a Pennsylvania State Trooper, you must immediately obtain a license to carry firearms, based on the Superior Court’s decision in Anderson.

If you or someone you know is being prosecuted for carrying a firearm absent a license to carry firearms, contact FICG today to discuss your options.


Firearms Industry Consulting Group® (FICG®) is a registered trademark and division of Civil Rights Defense Firm, P.C., with rights and permissions granted to Prince Law Offices, P.C. to use in this article.

2 Comments

Filed under Firearms Law, Pennsylvania Firearms Law

Devastating En Banc Decision Regarding Act 235 Security Guards

Yesterday, in a devastating en banc opinion by the Pennsylvania Superior Court in Commonwealth v. Anderson, it ruled that an individual who is Act 235 certified is not entitled to carry a firearm to and from work, absent a license to carry firearms, regardless of the language in Act 235 that requires a private security guard carry his/her certificate when “on duty or going to and from duty and carrying a lethal weapon.”

The background of the case is explained succinctly by the court, stating:

The charges stem from an altercation on North Dewey Street in Philadelphia on November 3, 2013. Anderson was on his way home from his job as a private security guard, and he stopped at a party to pick up a friend who had asked him to take her home. He was wearing a bullet-proof vest and a security badge or lanyard around his neck, and he was carrying a gun; he stopped his car in the middle of the street. Meanwhile, Mark Ellis drove onto the street behind Anderson and stopped to drop off food at the home of a local resident, Syreeta Manire. After Manire retrieved the food, Ellis quickly proceeded to drive away. Anderson’s car was blocking the street, and Ellis stopped a few feet behind it. Anderson and Ellis then exchanged words. Ellis pulled out a gun, and Anderson tried to grab that gun from him. Shots were fired, and Anderson shot and killed Ellis. A subsequent police investigation determined that Anderson was not licensed to carry a firearm, but that he did possess a valid Act 235 certificate.

The Commonwealth decided not to prosecute Anderson for any homicide-related charges stemming from the shooting. But on January 17, 2014, it charged Anderson with impersonating a police officer and violating two provisions of the PUFA: Section 6106(a)(1), which prohibits carrying a firearm without a license, and Section 6108, which prohibits carrying an unlicensed firearm on public streets or public property in Philadelphia.

On February 11, 2014, Anderson filed a motion to quash the PUFA charges. After hearing argument, the trial court granted Anderson’s motion. In an opinion, the court explained that Act 235 requires private security guards to carry a certificate under the Act when “on duty or going to and from duty and carrying a lethal weapon,” and that, in the court’s view, this constitutes “legislatively created permission to carry a firearm on the street while ‘going to and from duty.’” … Therefore, Anderson was “entitled to avail himself of Act 235’s specific permission for him to be carrying a firearm at the time of his arrest” and could not be charged with violating the PUFA.

As the City of Philadelphia was disgruntled with the trial court’s dismissal of these charges, it appealed to the Superior Court.

On August 23, 2017, the Superior Court issued its en banc decision reversing the trial court and re-instituted the charges. After reviewing the history of the Uniform Firearms Act (referred to as PUFA by the court) and Act 235, the court declares that “PUFA requires a person carrying a firearm to have a license, but an Act 235 certificate is not a license and does not function as a type of document that could serve as a substitute for a license.” More specifically, the court states that “An Act 235 certificate thus does not act as the ‘license’ required by Sections 6106 and 6108 of the PUFA and cannot serve as a substitute for that license.”

But some of you are probably saying that he’s exempt under Section 6106(b)(6), which declares:

(b)  Exceptions.  The provisions of subsection (a) shall not apply to:

(6) Agents, messengers and other employees of common carriers, banks, or business firms, whose duties require them to protect moneys, valuables and other property in the discharge of such duties.

However, in a mind-boggling evisceration of the statutory language, the court goes on to say that the “exceptions” found in Section 6106(b), even though the statutory text states that subsection (a) shall not apply, are defenses that must be proven at trial. This is truly a manifest injustice, as the General Assembly is acutely aware of how to draft provisions that are “defenses,” as evidenced by 18 Pa.C.S. 912(c), and those that are immunities or exceptions.

Based on the absurdity of this decision, for example, now law enforcement officers, who are found in a courthouse possessing a firearm, are to be prosecuted and have to prove, as a defense, that the firearm was possessed in “lawful performance of official duties” because Section 913(c) makes such possession an “exception.” Even more obscene, the same would be true of “constables, sheriffs, prison or jail wardens, or their deputies, policemen of this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions, or other law-enforcement officers,” since this is an “exception” found in Section 6106(b).

As a result, if you are an Act 235 security guard, it is now imperative that you obtain a license to carry firearms, immediately. Likewise, if you are a law enforcement officer, including constable, sheriff, deputy or police officer, even a Pennsylvania State Trooper, you must immediately obtain a license to carry firearms.

If you or someone you know is being prosecuted for carrying a firearm absent a license to carry firearms, contact FICG today to discuss your options.


Firearms Industry Consulting Group® (FICG®) is a registered trademark and division of Civil Rights Defense Firm, P.C., with rights and permissions granted to Prince Law Offices, P.C. to use in this article.

8 Comments

Filed under Firearms Law, Pennsylvania Firearms Law

Did Upper Darby Police Superintendent Michael Chitwood and Reporter Stephanie Farr Commit a Felony of the Third Degree?

Yesterday, Reporter Stephanie Farr of Philly.com reported on an incident, where allegedly Mr. Domonique Jordan, an adult aide to a special-needs student, brought a firearm to the Drexel Hill Middle School. Apparently, Mr. Jordan has been charged with possession of a firearm on school property, even though, such charging would appear contrary to the en banc decision I recently obtained from the Superior Court in Commonwealth v. Goslin. Regardless, in her article, she states, “Jordan, an employee with Staffing Plus of Haverford, has a concealed-carry weapons permit and an Act 235 permit, which is issued to security guards by state police, [Upper Darby Police Superintendent Michael] Chitwood said.”

Unfortunately for Superintendent Chitwood and Reporter Farr, all license to carry firearms information is confidential and the disclosure of such is a felony of the third degree and also carries with it civil penalties. Specifically, 18 Pa.C.S. § 6111(g)(3.1) provides

Any person, licensed dealer, licensed manufacturer or licensed importer who knowingly and intentionally obtains or furnishes information collected or maintained pursuant to section 6109 for any purpose other than compliance with this chapter or who knowingly or intentionally disseminates, publishes or otherwise makes available such information to any person other than the subject of the information commits a felony of the third degree.

For those unaware, Section 6109 is the statutory section regarding the issuance of licenses to carry firearms. Section 6111(i) further provides, in pertinent part,

All information provided by the … applicant, including, but not limited to, the … applicant’s name or identity, furnished by … any applicant for a license to carry a firearm as provided by section 6109 shall be confidential and not subject to public disclosure. In addition to any other sanction or penalty imposed by this chapter, any person, … State or local governmental agency or department that violates this subsection shall be liable 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.

As our viewers are aware, I previously litigated a class action against the City of Philadelphia for disclosing confidential license to carry firearms applicant information which resulted in a $1.5 million dollar settlement and also secured a major victory, where the Commonwealth Court held that the use of un-enveloped postcards, which contain license to carry firearms applicant information, is a violation of the confidentiality provisions.

It will be interesting to see whether Superintendent Chitwood and Reporter Farr are held accountable. While Reporter Farr may have been unaware (even though ignorance of the law is not a defense), there is no reason for Superintendent Chitwood to not have been aware of the law.

If your confidential license to carry firearms applicant information has been disclosed, contact Firearms Industry Consulting Group, a division of Civil Rights Defense Firm, P.C., to discuss your legal rights.

 


Firearms Industry Consulting Group® (FICG®) is a registered trademarkand division of Civil Rights Defense Firm, P.C., with rights and permissions granted to Prince Law Offices, P.C. to use in this article.

1 Comment

Filed under Firearms Law, Pennsylvania Firearms Law, Uncategorized

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!

2 Comments

Filed under Firearms Law, Pennsylvania Firearms Law