On paper, it’s not that difficult for non-residents who want to get a carry permit in Pennsylvania to do so. State law provides that licenses to carry are available to all adults 21 years of age or older who pay a $20 fee and pass a background check. But many jurisdictions in the Keystone State are refusing to issue permits to out-of-state residents, and now Attorney General Pam Bondi is warning that the practices of those agencies are breaking the law.
While the only additional requirements for a resident of another state to obtain a Pennsylvania LTCF, is that they already have a permit from their home state, many county Sheriffs, in violation of PA law, simply refuse to process non-resident applications with no legal justification.
… Attorney General Bondi apparently recently became aware of this practice and sent this letter to PA AG Sunday and Montgomery County Sheriff Kilkenny, thoroughly explaining how this practice violates the Second Amendment and Article I, Section 21 of the PA Constitution, in addition to other well-established constitutional doctrines, and chastising the Sheriff for being among those who refuses to issue permits to non-residents, and the AG for allowing this practice to continue. The letter closes by with a request for their cooperation in ending the practice and a threat that DOJ will be “monitoring the situation closely.”
Prince Law Office attorney Dillon Harris says the firm is watching closely as well, and we may soon see litigation from the law firm, DOJ’s Civil Rights Division, or both.
As Bondi’s letter to Pennsylvania Attorney General David Sunday and Montgomery County Sheriff Sean Kilkenny (who’s also the head of the Pennsylvania Sheriff’s Association) makes clear, there’s no wiggle room in state law for licensing authorities when it comes to issuing licenses to eligible out-of-state gun owners.
As the website for the Pennsylvania State Police accurately recounts, many “county sheriffs will not issue nonresident License to Carry permits.” That categorical refusal includes your office, Sheriff Kilkenny, as well as the Philadelphia Police Department and many others. These offices direct out-of-state residents to “try another County in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.” In some geographic areas, such as the metropolitan Philadelphia region, very few sheriffs (just one that the Department of Justice has identified -Delaware County) actually fulfill their legal obligation to process carry license applications by nonresidents. This is a clear violation of Pennsylvania law, which expressly contemplates that both resident and nonresident firearm licenses will be processed on a “shall issue” basis.
Pennsylvania law provides that “[a]n individual”-not limited to Pennsylvania residents- “who is 21 years of age or older may apply to a sheriff’ -any sheriff- “for a license to carry a firearm concealed on or about his person or in a vehicle within this Commonwealth.” Only if theapplicant is a resident of the Commonwealth is he required to submit his application to a particular sheriff, specifically “the sheriff of the county in which he resides.” But if theapplicant is not a resident of the Commonwealth, the general rule applies that the applicant need only “apply to a sheriff.”
… The practice of refusing to accept applications is especially pernicious because there are no specified legal remedies for the bare refusal to entertain an application. In other states that operate under the Uniform Firearms Act, citizens have sought and obtained writs of mandamusto compel local licensing agencies to carry out their ministerial duty to entertain a license application. Nonresidents should not have to do that in Pennsylvania.
Bondi argues that these policies are a flagrant disregard for the Supreme Court’s decision in Bruen and its admonition that even shall-issue carry regimes can be unconstitutional if they are “put toward abusive ends” that “deny ordinary citizens their right to public carry.”
That is exactly what is happening across the Commonwealth. Moreover, because the categorical refusal to issue licenses specifically targets out-of-state residents, these policies are also suspect under the Privileges and Immunities Clause, which guarantees that “[t]he Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.”
I would appreciate your help resolving this situation promptly on a statewide basis and without the need for litigation. The Department of Justice will be monitoring the situation closely.
In other words, fix this now or get ready to be sued.
Though the Supreme Court has been unwilling to take up any 2A cases dealing with bans on “assault weapons” or even concealed carry since it handed down Bruen three years ago, it has granted cert to several cases brought by the DOJ over the past couple of years. The Trump administration’s decision to protect the right to keep and bear arms through the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division was already a big win, but it’s even more important now given the reluctance by SCOTUS to weigh in on private-party litigation in defense of our Second Amendment rights.
Read the full article here
