PA non-resident permits--don't believe what PA LEOs tell you...

It recently came to my attention in conversation with a MD resident that there are PA LEOs telling people with FL Non-Resident permits that they are no longer recognized as valid in PA.

This is complete and utter BS, and if an LEO tells you this, you should be sure to get his name and badge number so you can report him to his Chief (or Sheriff) and ALSO bring this to the attention to the PA AG's office, so that they can properly educated the corresponding department.

According to the PA AG's website, a permit issued by a state with reciprocity with PA is valid based on the fact that the issuing state has reciprocity with PA, and the fact that the permit holder legally holds that permit. Carry permits are in NO WAY dependent on the permit holder's state of residence, and Non-Resident permits are JUST AS VALID in PA as resident permits, if the issuing state has a reciprocity agreement with PA.

And I quote (emphasis mine):

Note: It has come to the attention of the Office of Attorney General that there has been confusion over the applicability of Pennsylvania's reciprocal privileges with regard to the residency status of an individual who has been issued a valid license/permit. It is the position of the Office of Attorney General that recognition within Pennsylvania is based on the issuance to an individual of a valid license/permit by the reciprocal contracting state, and not on the license/permit holder's place of residence.

Click to expand...

And Florida DOES have such an agreement. And MD residents MAY legally obtain a FL non-res permit even if they do not hold a MD permit.

Get the info from the "horse's mouth" at this link:

http://www.attorneygeneral.gov/crime.aspx?id=184

So, anyone who holds a FL non-res permit that hears this line of crap from a PA LEO that non-res FL permits are no longer valid in PA needs to be polite, and be sure to get the officer's name and badge number (get a business card, or video the encounter), and file a complaint later with their CO, AND report their department to the PA AG's office so that they can be properly trained on the OFFICIAL interpretation of the Attorney General in their state.

. A most excellent post, Dreamer. Additionally, the state maintains preemption through 18 Pa.C.S. § 6120...

18 Pa.C.S. § 6120: Limitation on the regulation of firearms and ammunition: (a) General rule.--No county, municipality or township may in any manner regulate the lawful ownership, possession, transfer or transportation of firearms, ammunition or ammunition components when carried or transported for purposes not prohibited by the laws of this Commonwealth.

Click to expand...

Additionally, regarding the carry of a firearm, concealed, or in any vehicle...

18 Pa.C.S. § 6106: Firearms not to be carried without a license

(a) Offense defined.--
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), any person who carries a firearm in any vehicle or any person who carries a firearm concealed on or about his person, except in his place of abode or fixed place of business, without a valid and lawfully issued license under this chapter commits a felony of the third degree.
(2) A person who is otherwise eligible to possess a [FN1] valid license under this chapter but carries a firearm in any vehicle or any person who carries a firearm concealed on or about his person, except in his place of abode or fixed place of business, without a valid and lawfully issued license and has not committed any other criminal violation commits a misdemeanor of the first degree.

(b) Exceptions.--The provisions of subsection (a) shall not apply to: ... (11) Any person while carrying a firearm in any vehicle, which person possesses a valid and lawfully issued license for that firearm which has been issued under the laws of the United States or any other state.

Click to expand...

So it is not just Florida. Even if PA does not have an actual reciprocal agreement with another state, PA still recognizes other permits by statute, and only the legislature can change that. .

Dreamer said:

It recently came to my attention in conversation with a MD resident that there are PA LEOs telling people with FL Non-Resident permits that they are no longer recognized as valid in PA.

.

Click to expand...

More than likely, this LEO was one of the fine members of the Phila PD. Philly passed an ordinance that only provides reciprocity for about 1/2 dozen states. What Philly fails to realize...even tho quite a few of us have informed them...is that they have no authority to pass such an ordinance and as said ordinance is not enforceable.

mrjam2jab said:

More than likely, this LEO was one of the fine members of the Phila PD. Philly passed an ordinance that only provides reciprocity for about 1/2 dozen states. What Philly fails to realize...even tho quite a few of us have informed them...is that they have no authority to pass such an ordinance and as said ordinance is not enforceable.

Click to expand...

They wouldn't do anything like that now would they?

Sarcasm off now.

mrjam2jab said:

More than likely, this LEO was one of the fine members of the Phila PD. Philly passed an ordinance that only provides reciprocity for about 1/2 dozen states. What Philly fails to realize...even tho quite a few of us have informed them...is that they have no authority to pass such an ordinance and as said ordinance is not enforceable.

Click to expand...

Which is why I got a PA permit a few years ago--just for Philly PD. IF I am ever stopped in Philly, I will immediately produce my UT permit. When they say that's no good here, I'll give them my NC permit. IF they balk at that, I'll pull my PA permit, and tell them they can either let me go my merry way or I'll be seeing them in Federal Court when they are summoned to defend against a 1983 Civil Rights Violation suit, WITHOUT the benefit of qualified immunity...

BTW officer, how badly do you REALLY want to sign over your retirement pension to me? Badly enough to willfully violate Pennsylvania State Law, just to show me how tough you are?

Personally, I'd rather we all just do the adult thing here, and part as friends. But if you want, I'm sure there is a Federal Judge here in Philly that would LOVE to hear you explain why you felt the need to violate my civil rights, PA state law, and the US constitution all in one fell swoop. And I'm sure he will be VERY impressed at what a tough guy you are, thinking that the laws of this state do not apply to you, but some made-up color-of law bullying on your part DO apply to me.


Let us not forget that the current "Top Cop" in Philly (Charles Ramsey) used to be the Chief in Washington DC--but he was forced to resign after a series of highly publicized civil rights violation lawsuits that DC Metro PD lost and had to pay out for.

His reward for violating the civil rights of DC citizens? He was offered the Commissioner of Police job in Philly in less than a week after his resignation in disgrace from DC.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_H._Ramsey

Birds of a feather...

mrjam2jab said:

More than likely, this LEO was one of the fine members of the Phila PD. Philly passed an ordinance that only provides reciprocity for about 1/2 dozen states. What Philly fails to realize...even tho quite a few of us have informed them...is that they have no authority to pass such an ordinance and as said ordinance is not enforceable.

Click to expand...

The problem is several fold:

1) You're still out time and legal fees even if Philly capitulates immediately. I don't see Philly reimbursing you for a couple of days spent in jail and your lawyer's retainer. If Philly wants to fight it to the bitter end to bleed you dry it just gets worse.

2) A Philly officer following a Philly ordinance has a colorable pretext for not having his qualified immunity pierced. Courts tend to be so deferential to LEOs you will probably lose on that point. Indeed, a paranoid mind like mine might think that the sole purpose of the statute is to provide a defense for qualified immunity claims. Any money damages are then paid by the taxpayer, so the officer really doesn't give a damn if he violates your rights, and it's almost impossible to prove the existence of an unofficial policy to harass lawful gun owners. The irony that the taxpayers are paying the damages for what their own cops do to them is surely not lost on the top brass.

3) Until PA passes an ordinance like FL just did, which provides for substantial personal damages to be paid by public officials who flout the state preemption law, nothing will change.

Thank you dreamer, looks like PA actually does recognize our WA CPL, interesting. Never go near Philly anyway, I 80 to I 84...THEN the problem comes, that is, NY.

randian said:

The problem is several fold:

1) You're still out time and legal fees even if Philly capitulates immediately. I don't see Philly reimbursing you for a couple of days spent in jail and your lawyer's retainer. If Philly wants to fight it to the bitter end to bleed you dry it just gets worse.

2) A Philly officer following a Philly ordinance has a colorable pretext for not having his qualified immunity pierced. Courts tend to be so deferential to LEOs you will probably lose on that point. Indeed, a paranoid mind like mine might think that the sole purpose of the statute is to provide a defense for qualified immunity claims. Any money damages are then paid by the taxpayer, so the officer really doesn't give a damn if he violates your rights, and it's almost impossible to prove the existence of an unofficial policy to harass lawful gun owners. The irony that the taxpayers are paying the damages for what their own cops do to them is surely not lost on the top brass.

3) Until PA passes an ordinance like FL just did, which provides for substantial personal damages to be paid by public officials who flout the state preemption law, nothing will change.

Click to expand...

Sometimes it is all about who you include in your suit ... such as the Police Chief (he set the daily standard opperating procedures), the city attorney for allowing the attempted enforcement of an illegal ordinance (who should have known better), the Mayor for trying to get the Chief to enforce an illegal ordinance, along with said cop-on-the-street who is going to get thrown under the bus unless he has a really good PBA attorney that can negotiate behind closed doors with the city to spread the stinky stuff around.

At a certain point, the city will reach a decision gate in which going forward to Federal Supreme Court on a Civil Rights violation is too stinky compared to ponying up 5-6 figures of 'hush' money. Especially in an election year

randian said:

The problem is several fold:.

2) A Philly officer following a Philly ordinance has a colorable pretext for not having his qualified immunity pierced. Courts tend to be so deferential to LEOs you will probably lose on that point. Indeed, a paranoid mind like mine might think that the sole purpose of the statute is to provide a defense for qualified immunity claims. Any money damages are then paid by the taxpayer, so the officer really doesn't give a damn if he violates your rights, and it's almost impossible to prove the existence of an unofficial policy to harass lawful gun owners. The irony that the taxpayers are paying the damages for what their own cops do to them is surely not lost on the top brass.

.

Click to expand...

In Washington the courts have ruled that if it is an established law or a clarified law that qualified immunity does not work, I need to find that cite. Dreamer has shown what is established and clarified the cops of Philly have no reason not to know the law regardless of a city ordinance that ignores State law.

Besides Philly PD saying this are there cases of them actually enforcing it - citing people, arresting someone, confiscatinng a firearm?

well,,,

sudden valley gunner said:

In Washington the courts have ruled that if it is an established law or a clarified law that qualified immunity does not work, I need to find that cite. Dreamer has shown what is established and clarified the cops of Philly have no reason not to know the law regardless of a city ordinance that ignores State law.

Click to expand...

not washington ,,, I think you should look to St. john V. Alamagordo...

Ocer removed from movie theater and detained, only for the lawfull gun.

1245A Defender said:

not washington ,,, I think you should look to St. john V. Alamagordo...

Ocer removed from movie theater and detained, only for the lawfull gun.

Click to expand...

I don't have the cite on me and it wasn't dealing with firearms it was dealing with recording police, Washington supreme court has ruled against qualified immunity if the law is established or has been clarified by the courts. It might be in Johnson vs. Sequim.

St. John V. Alamagordo is a very good ruling and specific to OC.