search
top

Why There is No Negotiation on “Florida Loophole”

As long as the information is public, look at some of these reasons for appeal:

I am pastor of a church; I carry large sums of money to bank at least 2-3 times a week. As a businessman, I was robbed once. I could very well be a target for the automobile I drive and my appearance.

Pastor of a church, real danger to society there.

I answered all questions on the gun permit application truthfully. The previous referred to in the denial letter occurred more than thirty years ago.

Previously denied for a permit 30 years ago when the city was may-issue? This is now a ground for denial? This is illegal.

 I don’t think it was right for them to take my license. I was the victim. They came into my home and I shot a warning shot.

So someone breaks into your home, you fire a warning shot (admittedly not wise) and that’s ground for a permit revocation?

The reason why my gun was left in my car was due to the fact that my brother asked me to watch my nephew for a few minutes and I was on my way out. My nephew likes to grab on me and hang on me and I was afraid he would grab my weapon. I never leave my weapon in my vehicle and would never do it again.

Leaving a gun in a locked vehicle is grounds for revocation of a license?

I was wrongly accused of being a bartender. I was not arrested or charged with any crime.

So we’re denying based on profession?

There’s an old saying we often tell children: if you can’t play with the toy nicely, you can’t have the toy. The end result of this is going to be the character and reputation clause being removed, since the City of Philadelphia is incapable of not abusing it. Most of these folks have arrests, many of them long long ago. Arrests should not be grounds for denying a fundamental constitutional right. The character and reputation clause is therefore unconstitutional, and should be removed from the Uniform Firearms Act.

Whether the City realizes it or not, they have given actual hard evidence that yes, they are abusing the permit process, and with that hard evidence, we are going to redouble our efforts to stop them from doing it. There can be no negotiation on closing the Florida Loophole until this abuse is taken seriously.

12 Responses to “Why There is No Negotiation on “Florida Loophole””

  1. Zermoid says:

    I love the hypocrisy of this one:

    “The officer took my weapon and permit and stated “only drug dealers around that neighborhood carry guns”, and “we don’t need guns in this area.” The officer also stated he will make sure i don’t get either one back ever again.”

    If it would have been me I’d immediately point to the cop’s side and ask “Then what’s that doing here? Or are you saying you are a drug dealer?”

  2. Jake says:

    My favourite is the one that simply says: “18 PA. Cons. Stat 9124 (6)(1) prohibits consideration of information which was used as the sole grounds for denying my license.”

    Simple, concise, and to the point.

    • Sebastian says:

      That only applies to professional and trade licensing, not to LTCs. That person is mistaken. Otherwise I would have included it.

  3. asdf says:

    No worries… the gatekeepers at the Daily News and Inquirer will make sure that nobody gets to see this side of the story…

  4. asdf says:

    The solution to this could be easy. Have permits issued by State police instead of local police. This way any resident of PA could go to any part of the state to get their permit, bypassing Philly altogether. Better yet, the whole thing could be done online to ensure that all Pennsylvanians are treated equally.

  5. Trevor Shepherd says:

    I am very pro-gun and I think that unless someone is likely to carry out a violent act that endangers someone else, that person should be allowed to carry a gun. But I also believe that it is up to the people of each State to determine, collectively, the rules for how their state issues permits. Allowing a man to carry a gun in PA because FLORIDA says it is OK when he can not lawfully get a permit in PA is allowing the people of Florida to dictate to the people of PA what our laws will be. I’m against that kind of cross border intrusion into our laws and our procedures. If Philly or Montgomery County do not lawfully and faithfully follow the shall-issue laws of this Commonwealth, it is a matter for PA courts to provide relief and for the PA legislature to provide reform. It should not be up to the people of Florida to interfere in our State’s affairs. In PA, the fundamental seat of governance is the State level. All political subdivisions, including counties and the City/County of Philadelphia are subservient to the authority of the State. Let the State settle this, including the courts and the legislature, and keep other states from butting into our business.

    • Sebastian says:

      Umm…. Pennsylvania has agreed to recognize licenses issued by the State of Florida, regardless of the residence of the person holding it.

      Florida Licenses are an important escape valve for people who are unjustly denied licenses by the City of Philadelphia, who is abusing its discretion.

      The state has settled this issue. Florida permits are recognized, and I think people who suggest they are “very pro-gun” have a vested interest in keeping it this way until such time as the City of Philadelphia can be brought under control.

      Rights do not know state borders. You have a right to bear arms regardless of whether your Floridan or Pennsylvanian. Let’s not buy the notion that rights end at state borders. That is not a freedom loving notion.

      • Harold says:

        I’ve heard that St. Louis area authorities (the sheriff’s office(s)) have tried to be cute with official Missouri state CCW licensing, and perhaps in anticipation of this a resident is covered if they have a license from any US locality. The press whine when there’s a self-defense incident involving an out of state license, but I don’t think many other care. When talking to the deputy who takes care of this for my very Red State SW county, he didn’t seem at all concerned about it, said plenty of people did it to save money or for the lower age requirements back when our’s was 23.

        His general attitude was that people who jump through the hoops are not one’s he’ll be seeing at the other end of the HQ where the county lockup is; he also said the county has had to permanently revoke very few licenses, something like 1-3 out of 2,300 or 2,700 outstanding today, over the 8 years the law has been in effect; I don’t think any of these were for crimes of violence.

    • Jake says:

      There is a significant flaw in your argument.

      The elected government of PA has chosen – free of the dictates of any other state or the federal government – to recognize FL non-resident permits. “The people of Florida” are not “interfering” in your state’s affairs, your state has willingly decided to allow those FL allows to carry in FL to also carry in PA, regardless of whether they could lawfully get a permit in PA or not.

      And that’s not even getting into the whole bit about whether the exercise of Constitutionally protected Rights is something the states should be able to restrict absent an actual conviction of a crime.

      • AZRon says:

        I could be wrong. (it happens all the time)

        The issue that I see here is that the city of Philadelphia considers itself immune to enacted state law, and abuses its power.

        They ignore state law, federal law, and inherent, natural law. That’s why some states have adopted preemption statutes. It reaffirms our protection against an overzealous enclave.

        August in AZ is a bitch, but we have preemption and constitutional carry. I’ll not be moving to Phil anytime soon.

        • HSR47 says:

          We have preemption in PA (title 18 section 6120), but it has no specified penalty, and there seems to be no DA, much less the AG, who will apply the generalized penalty in the law (title 18 section 6119) to preemption cases.

          Thus the issue isn’t that we don’t have preemption, it’s that our preemption statute has no teeth. There is currently an effort to change this: HB 1523, being spearheaded by FOAC and ignored/opposed by the NRA. Just like they usually do…

  6. Trevor Shepherd says:

    Ah yes, conservatives are always for states’ rights, unless it doesn’t suit them at the moment.

top