Author: Sebastian

The Uniform Firearms Act is pretty clear on this:

The application for a license to carry a firearm shall be uniform throughout this Commonwealth and shall be on a form prescribed by the Pennsylvania State Police. The form may contain provisions, not exceeding one page, to assure compliance with this section. Issuing authorities shall use only the application form prescribed by the Pennsylvania State Police.

Except the Philadelphia police illegally require extra forms that are not prescribed by the State Police, notably two reference sheets. In addition, they require fingerprinting, which is not prescribed as part of the process. They require military discharge papers for those who were in the military, which are not part of the prescribed process. They conduct interviews with applicants. They require naturalized citizens to bring their naturalization papers. None of this is in the spirit of “shall be uniform throughout this Commonwealth.”

Either these issues need to be addressed, or Chief of Police’s authority to issue permits should be assigned to the State Police instead.

We have a list of approximately 29 names that were listed yesterday, which provides us a handy means of actually looking to see whether there is just reason for denial of a permit for some of these individuals. I will not reprint full names or addresses here, nor will I link to dockets, but I will go through every name and find their court records, which are online in Pennsylvania. Keep in mind that with common names, confusion is possible, and also that there could be out of state records that we don’t have access to.

Continue reading “Philadelphia’s Permit Denials”

Unfortunately, I think it’s plausible. From the updated post from yesterday:

“The legal department has determined that this is public information. Its publication is legal. An individual who is denied a permit and files an appeal, that person has waived their right to confidentiality. All that said, within the government, there is a concern about the propriety of publishing the information, and so we’re looking at this again. On the one hand, city government wants to be transparent and believes in the concept of open data. Access to information makes for strong citizenry and effective government. But on the other hand, there are public safety concerns with regard to this information.

So the appeals process in Philadelphia is that you first appeal to a board, which will review your case. My understanding is that it is very rare for the board to overturn the determination of the Philadelphia Police. The next step is an appeal in Commonwealth Court, and court records are public information. So the city is suggesting that once the appeal is made, because it goes to a court case which is public record, it no longer becomes private information protected by the Uniform Firearms Act.

This isn’t over, by a long shot. More to come.

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.