Comments on: The “Florida Loophole”

By: damnum absque injuria » On Loopholes

damnum absque injuria » On Loopholes — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 12:40:35 +0000

[...] conduct background checks on sales while private sellers are not. Now Philly is up in arms over the “Florida Loophole,” which allows Pennsylvania residents to carry concealed weapons with permits issued by reciprocal [...]

By: Chris

Chris — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 01:08:01 +0000

We have a guy on several of the boards here in NC that had a conviction in VA for discharging his firearm while he was off duty as a cop. NC denied his CCH permit but VA gave him a non-resident permit.

By: Xrlq

Xrlq — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 21:39:06 +0000

I think Ian may be on to something. Allowing reciprocity for residents as well as non-residents was probably a loophole (I’d change my mind if presented with evidence that someone in the legislature proposed an amendment to address this issue but got voted down), but it’s a loophole Philly wouldn’t much care about if they weren’t busy exploiting a different loophole that gives them more discretionary power than the law’s proponent’s intended.

By: Laci the Dog

Laci the Dog — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 20:50:34 +0000

I’m saying the same thing I tell the press about this:

“his defense attorney declined a News request to comment.”

By: Ian Argent

Ian Argent — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 20:32:43 +0000

If an attempt to pull in-state reciprocity was made; this PA neighbbor sees it as likely that the discretionary revocation power will be pulled as well. No?

By: Sebastian

Sebastian — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 20:30:52 +0000

I’ll go a step further and question the whole concept of “legislative intent” in a case like this. Who’s intent is that? The parties that drafted and supported the bill and passed it? Who might have no doubt realized this “loophole” and hoped no one noticed? The opposition? Who consider the whole bill a “loophole” in the “no one can carry a concealed gun” ideal. I don’t think a legislature is a coherent enough body for the purposes of its intent to be divined. All we have to go on is what they wrote, and the reciprocity law contains no provision for restricting agreements to non-Pennsylvania residents.

Ultimately I will judge the legislative intent by whether the legislature goes to bar residents from using out of state licenses to carry in Pennsylvania, which I don’t believe will happen.

By: Xrlq

Xrlq — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 20:04:04 +0000

That argument proves too much. Are you saying no legislature ever screws up and enacts a law that is either more or less restrictive than intended? I think it’s elementary that what one does and what one intended to do are not necessarily the same thing.

By: PAFOA Detailed Response to Daily News Article | Snowflakes in Hell

PAFOA Detailed Response to Daily News Article | Snowflakes in Hell — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 20:00:52 +0000

[...] took a bit of a different style than my fisking yesterday, but you can find the PAFOA response about this matter [...]

By: Sebastian

Sebastian — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 19:57:01 +0000

I would argue if they didn’t put the language in there to limit reciprocity to people who were not residents of Pennsylvania, that means they didn’t intend that to be the case. Other states have certainly done that.

By: Xrlq

Xrlq — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 19:52:45 +0000

I dunno, it does sound kinda loophole-y to me. Did the PA Legisislature actually intend to allow PA residents to avail themselves of reciprocity, or did they simply not consider the resident vs. non-resident angle? The latter is a classic example of a loophole; the former, doing legal $#!t I (well, not really I, but the proverbial “I”) don’t like.