I’ve just become aware of a case in Franklin County, PA of a gentleman who was open carrying while voting last Tuesday, which is perfectly lawful in Pennsylvania, with or without a license to carry firearms. Seems he had a relatively hostile encounter with a Pennsylvania Constable:
When I went to my polling place tonight I was asked by the Constable there if “that was a weapon”. I replied that it was. He said I would have to leave because weapons were not allowed in the polling place. I asked him what law this was based on. He said it was in the Voting Regulations, to which I replied “That applies to police officers”. He said that was correct. He got the regulation book and asked if I would step outside to discuss the matter. I agreed. He turned to the page that had the regulation regarding the police and read it off to me. I told him that I agreed completely, BUT, I was not a police officer, just a private citizen. This seemed to surprise him a bit.
He then made a call to someone who would “Know for sure”. The result of that call was that whoever he called was also unable to come up with anything specific preventing me from voting while carrying. When the call was done, the Constable asked me to please secure my weapon in my vehicle before voting, because it would make him “more comfortable”. I asked him if I would be refused entry to vote if I did not, he said no, that I would be permitted to vote either way. As we went back up the steps and prepared to enter, he stated that he “Just couldn’t understand why someone would need to bring a gun here, especially in this day and age.”
Read the whole thing. A few days later a letter arrives in the mail informing this gentleman that his License to Carry Firearms has been revoked, citing Title 18 § 6109 (e)(1)(i):
[A license shall not be issued to] an individual whose character and reputation is such that the individual would be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety.
So the sheriff in Franklin County apparently believes that using your License to Carry Firearms to, you know, actually carry a firearm, and standing up for your right to do so, makes you a person “who’s character or reputation is such” that you are “dangerous to public safety.” What does Sheriff Bob Wollyung think he’s issues licenses for? Did he think, maybe that people might want an LTCF to, I don’t know, carry a firearm?
I am becoming increasingly intolerant of the abuse of § 6109 (e)(1)(i) that I’m seeing in our Commonwealth, and I will support any effort to repeal that discretion which it seems entirely too many jurisdictions are willing to use improperly.
Same is here in Mass. Open carry is perfectly legal, but attempting to do so, or being cited for printing or an accidental exposure of a carry gun can, and has, been used as an excuse to show “bad charactor and judgement” and revoke your permit.
I dunno how the laws are down there, but here your permit is not just for carry, but for OWNERSHIP! This means you’ll have a short time to sell off, transfer, or surrender all your guns AND Ammo!
Due process be damned here.
Grrrr
Pennsylvania’s license isn’t a concealed carry license. It’s a “License to Carry Firearms”. While you don’t need and LTCF to carry openly (not in a vehicle, or in a city of the first class), you aren’t required by law to conceal. This is a bogus revocation, and the guy will win.
Sounds like a civil rights lawsuit against the sheriff is in order…
Sounds like a LEO getting pissy and vindictive because someone knew the law better than he did.
Sounds like a great story for gun friendly media and/or candidates to run on.
Also, a great case for a brutal 1983 action against the Sheriff, the constable (personally) and the election board.
We also have a law in Pennsylvania against “official oppression”.
Title 18 Chapter 53:
§ 5301. Official oppression.
A person acting or purporting to act in an official capacity
or taking advantage of such actual or purported capacity commits
a misdemeanor of the second degree if, knowing that his conduct
is illegal, he:
(1) subjects another to arrest, detention, search,
seizure, mistreatment, dispossession, assessment, lien or
other infringement of personal or property rights; or
(2) denies or impedes another in the exercise or
enjoyment of any right, privilege, power or immunity.
Sounds like the sheriff better lawyer up. I don’t believe the District Attorney can represent him in this as he should be filing charges against the sheriff, under title 18 chapter 53.
And if he does not, he should lawyer up.
CRAP!
I’ve known Greg for many years through another activity. I heard about the polling place incident, but not the revokation. I see on the PAFOA there is paypal account to donate toward the initial $2500 Greg needs to retain a lawyer. I’ll be sending what I can.
quote “Sounds like a great story for gun friendly media and/or candidates to run on.
Also, a great case for a brutal 1983 action against the Sheriff, the constable (personally) and the election board.” quote
My thoughts exactly…..Anyone know of any? I know the local papers around franklin county aren’t exactly gun friendly…
you can donate to the guys legal fund here
PayPal: gnbrotz at embarqmail dot com
more info here…
http://www.pafoa.org/forum/concealed-open-carry-121/11309-hassled-polls-ocing-page-13.html#post133950
Not offhand. The media tends to be hostile to gun rights.
This is something I could run past the guys at NRA and see if they’d be able to offer any help on a case like this. I don’t know this guy personally though, and have no way of getting in contact with him other than the forum. It looks like he’s trying to retain an attorney.
“I don’t know this guy personally though, and have no way of getting in contact with him other than the forum. ”
Sebastian, you have mail.
Well, let’s see if this fits. I believe it does.
DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW
Summary:
Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.
For the purpose of Section 242, acts under “color of law†include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of that official’s lawful authority, if the acts are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include police officers, prisons guards and other law enforcement officials, as well as judges, care providers in public health facilities, and others who are acting as public officials. It is not necessary that the crime be motivated by animus toward the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin of the victim.
The offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a life term, or the death penalty, depending upon the circumstances of the crime, and the resulting injury, if any.
TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, … shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death
I think it fits. But would the judicial system agree? I wish I could say yes, but I’m not that confident.
Me either.