Denied license to carry conundrum

[Docholliday]

In November of 2016 my mother let me pick out a pistol at the local gun shop. I gave all my information and everything she simply paid for it. I was 28 at the time and within 15 minutes I had my very first pistol ( not the first firearm I bought). In February of 2017 I went to the county sheriff's office and applied for my concealed carry permit. They informed me to come back on a specific date and I did. I got there all excited only for them to say I was denied. I proceeded to ask the officer why and he said I would receive a letter telling my why I was denied because he was unable to tell me in person he said. After 3 weeks I still had not received the letter so I called the sheriff's office and they said we will try to send it again. Another week went by before I got a letter from them, I opened it up to only find a challenge paper to fill out and send back in. They had not told me the reason why I was denied like they said they would. Well in that time of all that waiting I had moved, so I did not fill out the challenge paper since I had a new residence. May anyone have knowledge about denials as in do they actually tell you why you were denied and also does anyone know what I should do now about applying again. Do I need to start from the beginning because I have moved or would I still be sending in the challenge form?

 

[Statkowski]

18 Pa. C.S. § 6109(g) of the Uniform Firearms Act reads, in part, as follows: "If the sheriff refuses to issue a license, the sheriff shall notify the applicant in writing of the refusal and the specific reasons. The notice shall be sent by certified mail to the applicant at the address set forth in the application."

I am presuming that your county sheriff did none of this. They are required by law to tell you why they refused to issue the license.

Moving may have been the reason your initial letter didn't find you, but it is not a disqualifying factor concerning license issuance, unless you relocated to a different county within the Commonwealth.

 

[knight0334]

The catch there is, PICS is not allowed to divulge why they denied you to anyone - sheriff, FFL, or even the person that the search is for. So if the person is denied by PICS, the sheriff must deny you, but he'll not know why. The challenge is with the PSP.

 

[color of law]

The catch there is, PICS is not allowed to divulge why they denied you to anyone - sheriff, FFL, or even the person that the search is for. So if the person is denied by PICS, the sheriff must deny you, but he'll not know why. The challenge is with the PSP.

Who or what is PICS??????

 

[Statkowski]

Who or what is PICS??????

PICS - Pennsylvania Instant Check System http://www.psp.pa.gov/firearms-information/Pages/Pennsylvania-Instant-Checks-System---PICS.aspx

This system provides instant access to background records on an individual to determine if the person is eligible to acquire a firearm or a license to carry a firearm. The Instant Check Unit is a call center conducting the background check requests. This responsibility requires ensuring accurate identification of the subject of the background check, evaluation and research of federal, state and local records, comprehensive documentation, and maintaining positive communication with Firearm Dealers and Sheriffs.

Don't know why PICS would allow a person to purchase a firearm yet not get an LTCF. And if it was indeed PICS that caused the county sheriff to deny the license, that should have been stated in the denial letter.

 

[countryclubjoe]

Murdock v Pa.. (1943)..

A license or permit, to exercise a Constitutional right is UNCONSTITUTIONAL..

What is the problem?

" Bind down the public officials, with the chains of the Constitution".. Thomas Jefferson.

My .02
CCJ

 

[color of law]

Murdock v Pa.. (1943)..

A license or permit, to exercise a Constitutional right is UNCONSTITUTIONAL..

What is the problem?

" Bind down the public officials, with the chains of the Constitution".. Thomas Jefferson.

My .02
CCJ

I suggest you read Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 US 105 - Supreme Court 1943.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_...lvania,+319+U.S.+105+(1943)&hl=en&as_sdt=4,60

The First Amendment, which the Fourteenth makes applicable to the states, declares that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press . .." It could hardly be denied that a tax laid specifically on the exercise of those freedoms would be unconstitutional. Yet the license tax imposed by this ordinance is, in substance, just that.

 

[JamesCanby]

Murdock v Pa.. (1943)..

A license or permit, to exercise a Constitutional right is UNCONSTITUTIONAL..

What is the problem?

" Bind down the public officials, with the chains of the Constitution".. Thomas Jefferson.

My .02
CCJ

Please provide the Circuit Court or Supreme Court Decision that validates that statement.

 

[JoeSparky]

Please provide the Circuit Court or Supreme Court Decision that validates that statement.

Which of the 2 statements were you looking for the cite of....

The first in bold is found at the link provided by the post immediately before yours.----

 

[countryclubjoe]

Please provide the Circuit Court or Supreme Court Decision that validates that statement.

Any license requirement or permit is indeed a tax, simply because the terms license and permit are used instead of the word TAX.. If it takes money out of your pocket, it is indeed a tax. I understand your statist mentality, however any fee for the practice of exercising a natural or constitutional right, by any name, is indeed a TAX..

Again, in Murdock v Pa, the justices opined, "States do not have the power to" license or tax" a right guaranteed to the people...

If you can understand the text of the second amendment, clearly you can ascertain the meaning of Murdock.

License requirement, permit requirement, any fee thereof, is a tax, plain and simple..

" The power to tax is the power to destroy".. Justice John Marshall

" A free people claim their rights, as derived from the laws of Nature, and not as the gift of their Magistrates"... Thomas Jefferson

Magistrates do not bestow rights, they bestow Privileges, via license requirements and or permit requirements.. Go beg for your gift from your master, Ill keep my money and my RIGHTS, thank you!

"An equal right, is that every man hath, to his " Natural Freedom" without being subjected to the WILL or Authority of another man"..

License requirement, permit requirement, fee's of any kind, subjects a citizen to the WILL and or AUTHORITY of another man..

My .02
CCJ

 

[JamesCanby]

Any license requirement or permit is indeed a tax, simply because the terms license and permit are used instead of the word TAX.. If it takes money out of your pocket, it is indeed a tax. I understand your statist mentality, however any fee for the practice of exercising a natural or constitutional right, by any name, is indeed a TAX..

Again, in Murdock v Pa, the justices opined, "States do not have the power to" license or tax" a right guaranteed to the people...

If you can understand the text of the second amendment, clearly you can ascertain the meaning of Murdock.

License requirement, permit requirement, any fee thereof, is a tax, plain and simple..

" The power to tax is the power to destroy".. Justice John Marshall

" A free people claim their rights, as derived from the laws of Nature, and not as the gift of their Magistrates"... Thomas Jefferson

Magistrates do not bestow rights, they bestow Privileges, via license requirements and or permit requirements.. Go beg for your gift from your master, Ill keep my money and my RIGHTS, thank you!

"An equal right, is that every man hath, to his " Natural Freedom" without being subjected to the WILL or Authority of another man"..

License requirement, permit requirement, fee's of any kind, subjects a citizen to the WILL and or AUTHORITY of another man..

My .02
CCJ

There you go again, inferring facts not in evidence ("statist mentality"). You do not know me, you know nothing about me, and I find your comments not only absurd but highly objectionable.

Please DO try to exercise your rights without paying the requisite fees, and let us all know how that works out.... Oh... that's right ... despite your claims of triumph over the "petty tyrants," you have never once provided cites that validate your claims, even though your "victories" should be public records.

 

[countryclubjoe]

I stand by my hypothesis, states cannot tax a right guaranteed to the people. Murdock v Pa.. 1943...

" Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens because of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their rights due to ignorance".. United States V Minker (1956)...

" New opinions are always suspected and usually opposed, without any other reason but because they are not already common".. John Locke

License requirements, permit permission slips, are nothing more than a "tax".. ...

We need to incorporate all our rights to support the second amendment, 1st, 5th, 9th and 14th amendments need study to lend support to the 2nd amendment..

No Constitutional right should be Taxed...

My .02
CCJ

 

[countryclubjoe]

There you go again, inferring facts not in evidence ("statist mentality"). You do not know me, you know nothing about me, and I find your comments not only absurd but highly objectionable.

Please DO try to exercise your rights without paying the requisite fees, and let us all know how that works out.... Oh... that's right ... despite your claims of triumph over the "petty tyrants," you have never once provided cites that validate your claims, even though your "victories" should be public records.

The fact that you mentioned "rights" and "fee's" fee's of which are nothing more than a tax, in the same sentence lends to my theory that you and most law abiding folks are ignorant concerning their rights... Please stop finding fault with me and attempt to educate yourself.

Read Murdock v Pa.. (1943).
Read United States v Minker (1956)..

Read the constitution, pay strict attention to the 9th amendment... Some day you shall thank me, for opening your eyes to liberty.
My .02
CCJ








CCJ

 

[JamesCanby]

The fact that you mentioned "rights" and "fee's" fee's of which are nothing more than a tax, in the same sentence lends to my theory that you and most law abiding folks are ignorant concerning their rights... Please stop finding fault with me and attempt to educate yourself.

Read Murdock v Pa.. (1943).
Read United States v Minker (1956)..

Read the constitution, pay strict attention to the 9th amendment... Some day you shall thank me, for opening your eyes to liberty.
My .02
CCJ


CCJ

So.... how about if you "educate" all of us? Have you actually violated, visibly and publicly, any or all of the existing laws that stipulate those legislated taxes and fees? Show us how you have achieved victory over the system that you believe is operating in contradiction of the stare decisis
precedents set by the court cases you referenced.

 

[wabbit]

James, glad those truly necessary foot-stomping rants are out of your system as I know they were extremely informative to me in discerning why the OP has not heard about his permit's denial specifics, nor did they provide the OP any type of path towards resolving their quandary.

thoghts to assist the OP?

 

[JamesCanby]

James, glad those truly necessary foot-stomping rants are out of your system as I know they were extremely informative to me in discerning why the OP has not heard about his permit's denial specifics, nor did they provide the OP any type of path towards resolving their quandary.

thoghts to assist the OP?

Earlier posts addressed the OP's concern, perhaps not fully enough, but I am not a Pennsylvanian and choose not to give advice on laws for which I do not have great familiarity. The best that I can do is to refer the poster to handgunlaw.us and suggest he click on PA on their homepage map. Since you have chosen to mask your own location, one might assume that you are not from PA either, else you might have been able to offer state-specific information.

My "foot-stomping rants" as you termed them were to counter the very bad advice given by CCJ that, in effect, the OP should not worry about the need for a permit because the PA process and that of other states that require licensing or permitting for a fee is unconstitutional. The inferred sarcasm of your comment to me aligns you with CCJ. Duly noted.

 

[wabbit]

Docholiday,
Well, while not a citizen of your great state (sorry way too cold in the winter) you stated you obtained your pistol, using your personal information, but your mother paid for (?) and approximately three months later you went to the local Sheriff, which indicates to me you are not located in a “First Class” city.

What reason did you put for wishing to obtain a license?

Could there be any hint of issue in your background which would cast doubt on your character which you failed to mention to the background folk, e.g., mental, criminal, substance, juvie stuff, arrest but not charged, etc.

As Statkowski noted, you should have received the denial and reason for it. However, had you already moved which is why you didn’t receive the first copy?

Possibly when you contacted the Sheriff the second time to resend it, did you advised you moved provided a new address to receive their denial?
If so, the statute is clear, “(g) The notice shall be sent by certified mail to the applicant at the address set forth in the application.” Therefore, the Sheriff’s clerk, may have gotten confused and could have presumed you got denied from purchasing a firearm and followed their policy and sent out the PIC’s challenge documentation.

So might I offer the following suggestion: mark the last effort off as you are compounding the confusion factory. Reapply using new residential address, when called in to sheriff’s office show up with new DL in hand showing your current and be prepared to do a few mea culpa and nicely plead ignorance over the last attempt and see if that gets you your permit in 45 days.

Please remember I am not an attorney, nor do I know PA’s OC laws, but it sounds like with your move and such this turned into a small confusion factor and since you have moved…try again. Please keep us informed.

note: (?) above is a curious thought how a FFL could sell a firearm using information from an adult while accepting payment from someone else?

 

[wabbit]

Earlier posts addressed the OP's concern, perhaps not fully enough, but I am not a Pennsylvanian and choose not to give advice on laws for which I do not have great familiarity. The best that I can do is to refer the poster to handgunlaw.us and suggest he click on PA on their homepage map. Since you have chosen to mask your own location, one might assume that you are not from PA either, else you might have been able to offer state-specific information.

My "foot-stomping rants" as you termed them were to counter the very bad advice given by CCJ that, in effect, the OP should not worry about the need for a permit because the PA process and that of other states that require licensing or permitting for a fee is unconstitutional. The inferred sarcasm of your comment to me aligns you with CCJ. Duly noted.

Thank you James, for a thoughtful response, that you presumed the advice given by another member is 'very bad' while not providing any of your own is quite helpful.

Please understand, there was nothing inferred in my post to you James, nothing at all!

 

[JamesCanby]

So.... how about if you "educate" all of us? Have you actually violated, visibly and publicly, any or all of the existing laws that stipulate those legislated taxes and fees? Show us how you have achieved victory over the system that you believe is operating in contradiction of the stare decisis
precedents set by the court cases you referenced.

So..... here we are, two days later and despite numerous posts by CCJ in other threads, there is no response to my suggestion that he "educate" us through the myriad examples of his previous victories over the "unconstitutionality" of states imposing taxes or fees....

Two days later .... and crickets.

 

[countryclubjoe]

So..... here we are, two days later and despite numerous posts by CCJ in other threads, there is no response to my suggestion that he "educate" us through the myriad examples of his previous victories over the "unconstitutionality" of states imposing taxes or fees....

Two days later .... and crickets.

I exercise my rights, one cannot violate a law if said law is unconstitutional.. Bear in mind your results may differ.

In stead of attempting to make yourself look smart by correcting my spelling and or grammar, I suggest you familiarize yourself with,
The doctrine of selective incorporation. Selective incorporation is a Constitutional doctrine that ensures states CANNOT enact laws that take away the constitutional rights of American citizens that are enshrined in the " Bill of rights". I suggest you read, Gitlow v NY (1925) Brown v Board of Education (1954) Gideon v Wainright ( 1963).

" Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens because of their respect for what ONLY appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their rights due to fear or ignorance" United States v Minker

James, no disrespect but you are the poster child for United States v Minker,...

Please do some due-diligence and free yourself from the chains of your masters.

" Great minds have purposes, others have wishes' Washington Irving

My .02
CCJ