• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

OpenCarry.org joins amicus brief in lawsuit to protect privacy of gun carry licenses

Mike

Site Co-Founder
Joined
May 13, 2006
Messages
8,710
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
Petition to the Court at http://princelaw.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/amicus-of-pa-sheriffs-association.pdf

http://blog.princelaw.com

SNIP

On August 7th, the Pennsylvania Sheriffs’ Association, which represents 67 county sheriffs in Pennsylvania, filed a Petition for Leave to Participate Amicus Curiae in support of Perry County Sheriff Nace, in the matter of Barbara Hench, et al. v. Sheriff Carl Nace, 2014-454. The Petition and accompanying brief is joined by some 41 Federal and State Congressional Representatives and pro-Second Amendment organizations [including OpenCarry.org] . . .

Some interesting points are:
1.The PA Sheriff Association agrees with our Preliminary Objections that the Perry County Auditors are not acting within their official scope, as they are requesting that Sheriff Nace violate the law.
2.They correctly argue that even if the Perry County Auditors aren’t public, the information still cannot be disclosed to them because they are not “criminal justice agencies.”
3.They suggest that numbers could be utilized, in lieu of names and addresses, to identify the applicants.
4.They cite to our proposed settlement in John Doe, et al v. City of Philadelphia, et al.

I have a feeling that this week will be full of news about this litigation…Stay tuned

. . .
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,170
Location
earth's crust
I disagree ... they are public records and should be open to the public.

The focus should be to eliminate the need for any permission slips.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,331
Location
Valhalla
I disagree ... they are public records and should be open to the public.

The focus should be to eliminate the need for any permission slips.
Tell that to the woman who does not wish to be found by her abusive ex.

I've seen the result of a failed protective order - it wasn't pretty, but it did eliminate the need for it :(
 

sheepdog

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2008
Messages
299
Location
Texas
...what other legitimate reason could the auditors have for wanting the info which the Sheriff withheld other than auditing/accounting for the money tendered with the applications....which has already been accounted for by an audit without a problem being found...and no sensitive information was released(as the law stipulates)...
 

Lord Sega

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2010
Messages
311
Location
Warrenton, Oregon
I noticed in the linked Amicus brief (attach A) that they make the point about any Sheriff that "furnishes information collected or maintained pursuant to section 6109" would be committing felony of the third degree.

Now, IANAL, but it also states the same penalty for "Any person, ...[snip] who knowingly and intentionally obtains" the same info.
By my reading the auditors would also be committing felony of the third degree, not just the Sheriffs.
And I would assume that for both it is one count per document furnished or obtained.

§ 6111. Sale or transfer of firearms
(g) Penalties
(3.1) Any person, licensed dealer, licensed manufacturer or licensed importer who knowingly and intentionally obtains or furnishes information collected or maintained pursuant to section 6109 for any purpose other than compliance with this chapter or who knowingly or intentionally disseminates, publishes or otherwise makes available such information to any person other than the subject of the information commits a felony of the third degree. [bold and color mine]

So how many forms under 6109 times min/max penalty for 3rd degree felony equals how much in fines and/or jail time?
Anyone have contacts with the Pennsylvania Sheriffs’ Association? They may want to amend the Amicus brief.
 
Last edited:
Top