Sheriff David May Have Illegally Denied Gun Permits To Hundreds Of People Who Applied

gun-case

Sheriff George David has illegally denied concealed carry permits to hundreds of people who applied for them, according to some of the state’s top experts on the subject.

An investigation by the Beaver Countian has uncovered over 300 instances in the past two years where individuals who appear to qualify for gun permits under state law, were then denied the right to carry a concealed firearm because of additional policies created by Sheriff David.

Sheriff David requires individuals who are cleared to have a gun permit by the Pennsylvania Instant Check System (PICS is a system run by the Pennsylvania State Police) also be searched in the Pennsylvania Justice Network (JNET) database. David’s policy is to automatically deny gun permits to any individual who JNET shows has been convicted of any crime, even if that crime is not violent, was committed decades ago, and even if the offense is not a disqualifying one under Pennsylvania state law.

The Sheriff spells out this policy succinctly on the county’s official website, writing in bold lettering: “The application must have NO CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS.”

Individuals who have been found guilty of any criminal offense are then required by David to seek an expungement of their conviction through the courts before he will even consider granting a gun permit. If they are unable to get an expungement, or are unwilling to pay the necessary fees to obtain one, they are denied the right to carry a concealed firearm.

The Beaver Countian spoke to several individuals who were denied concealed carry permits because they entered into the Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition (ARD) program for a single DUI charge, and others who were denied because they were convicted of a minor ungraded misdemeanor years ago. These individuals would have been granted gun permits under previous Sheriffs in Beaver County, who denied individuals the right to a concealed carry license only if they were shown to have committed a disqualifying offense by the PICS background check.

Kim Stolfer, who serves as Legislative Chairman for the Allegheny County Sportsmen’s League (ACSL), Chairman of Firearm Owners Against Crime (FOAC), and Vice Chairman of PA Sportsmen’s Association (PSA), says David’s policies are a clear violation of state law.

“What Sheriff David is saying to these people, in an egregious way, is that they have no right to protect themselves because of one DUI, because of his own blanket policies, and that’s unconstitutional,” said Stolfer. “What part of his oath does this Sheriff not understand? [...] Sheriff David’s actions fly in the face of everything the legislature intended by the license to carry a concealed firearm provisions. How do I know this? I was part of the original team that wrote the legislation in the 1980s, and then pushed the licensing statute into law. So this is our law, and what Sheriff David has done is added his own provisions to it, and that’s just not legal.”

Sheriff David points to a discretionary provision of the statute to justify his policies, which gives him the authority to deny permits to persons “of character and reputation” that make them “likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety.”

Michael McCormick, a 2nd Amendment attorney from Allegheny County whose work has been recognized by the United States Concealed Carry Association, and who has lectured at seminars presented by the Pennsylvania Bar Institute on topics of firearms law, said Sheriff David’s reliance on those provisions don’t pass legal muster. “Discretion involves a judgement call based on the facts in connection with a specific individual — here he is establishing a blanket policy. He’s not making a determination of anyone’s character or reputation, he’s setting forth what turns out to be additional legislation, isn’t he? He’s usurping some of the authority that resides in the state legislature itself.”

“Many, many, many very good people have made a mistake and gotten a DUI, and those people are still very good people,” added Attorney McCormick. “Just because someone gets a single DUI, or commits a minor criminal offense, doesn’t automatically mean they then have a character or reputation that would show them to be a danger to public safety.”

“Sheriff David’s position is very contrary to the people’s right to obtain a concealed carry permit,” said McCormick. “Pennsylvania is a ‘shall’ issue state, and it seems the Sheriff in Beaver County is negating that. To refuse a license for any conviction, no matter what it is and without looking into the details of the incident, or even for an ARD… it’s very extreme, and he simply can’t make that policy.”

“These are constitutional freedoms that Sheriff David is rolling into an aluminium ball and tossing into the corner,” said Kim Stolfer. “When you violate a provision of the Uniform Firearms Act, which licensing falls under, it’s a misdemeanor crime. Why is there a double standard in justice? Sheriff David is committing a crime each time he does this, each time he unlawfully denies someone a gun permit he could be put in prison.”

“I know Sheriff David, I’ve sat with Sheriff David, I’ve had dinner with Sheriff David,” concluded Stolfer. “I don’t care if my statements would seem to him to be blunt, or really what he thinks, because I work on the premise that he works for us. He needs to care about what we think of him.”

A previous investigative report by the Beaver Countian showed that Sheriff David may have also been violating state laws regulating gun permit fees. As part of a lawsuit filed by a Beaver County man, Common Pleas Judge Kim Tesla found that Sheriff David was violating individuals’ due process rights with his policies on gun permit revocations.

Note: In the interest of full disclosure, this reporter is a named victim in criminal charges filed against Sheriff George David by the Pennsylvania State Police.

 

96 comments

  1. He knows what his oath is, he just doesn’t care.
    He operates under his jurisdiction, and that is all he cares about. He believes that he is the equivalent of “The Teflon Don”, John Gotti.
    Well, guess what? It may have taken years, but they eventually got something to stick to him. Now it’s time for Sheriff David…

    (0)
  2. where is 76wita95 or act111 they been calling this shit for over a year

    111 said the other shoe has dropped but hasn’t hit the floor well that fucking thing sure is levitating and kicking in its voyage down

    (0)
  3. Great article!

    (0)
  4. tick-tock, tick-tock, tick-tock…….

    (0)
  5. Silence_Dogood

    I loved this article! My favorite part was the statement made by Kim Stolfer about not caring what the Sheriff thinks about his statements because he works for us. So much truth there. It sickens me that some people in Beaver County are afraid of him. Fearing your government is the definition of tyranny. People fearing him and repercussions that he may bring against them for standing against his unlawful policies makes him a tyrant. We should not fear him. He should fear us. Great article John Paul!

    (0)
  6. About damn time. I’ve been wondering when the hell somebody was going to put his nuts in a vice for this. Funny how he denies EVERYBODY with any conviction even if it’s not disqualifying, yet all his buddies who go around making racist statements and flashing their gun have their permits.

    (0)
  7. John Paul…You’ve outdone yourself!!! Excellent article!!!! Keep up the good work~ :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

    (0)
  8. so looks like 300 misdemeanors need to filed

    lol good luck with if I where a partner of old myron I be liking to jump ship he might be tied up..

    also sounds like class action law suit… whew commissioners have to step up.

    and now this is made aware of…. the duediligence of indifference law steps in those in position to charge dont charge they could be charged.. good luck with that

    but they put the 16 penny nail in your ass a guy that helped craft the law and civil rights attorney in same article lol

    (0)
  9. The poor gun permit girl gone take heat this time find some way to stick it on her.

    (0)
  10. dont worry georgie will try to make up something to screw stephanie again or maybe he’ll have john joe do it

    (0)
  11. “Individuals who have been found guilty of any criminal offense are then required by David to seek an expungment of their conviction through the courts before he will even consider granting a gun permit. If they are unable to get an expungement, or are unwilling to pay the necessary fees to obtain one, they are denied the right to carry a concealed firearm.”

    So the sheriff required people to pay for and expungement, which also requires a background check fee on top of the $180.00 , multiply that with 300 expungements, theres 54k the county put in the bank. Interesting ..

    (0)
    • One has to wonder if David made cash deals in any of these instances. Excellent job JP.

      (0)
      • HMMMMMM WAT’D U SAY HIS NAME WAS AGAIN?? DAVID DUKE.. OOOOH WE REMEMBER HIM THE ORIGINAL GRAND WIZARD OF WAT??? LOL

        (0)
  12. Take about a “Little Caesar” complex! This guy needs some serious mental counseling, and quick! And, oh yea, he needs to be arrested and thrown in jail ASAP! Where’s the State Police when you need them?

    (0)
  13. I actually agree with the sheriff. If you are”stupid” enough to committ a crime then you are not “smart” enough to carry a gun

    (0)
    • Does your logic also include your buddy George David and his criminal family?

      (0)
    • If a crime is such that it should prohibit a person to carry a concealed firearm, it should be spelled out in the UFA. The lawmakers made sure that serious crimes would prohibit a person from obtaining a License to Carry a Firearm. As in the case above, the lawmakers decided that 1 DUI would not be a prohibiting offense, but being a habitual drunkard would (common law states this as being convicted of 3 alcohol related crimes in a 10 year period). The authority granted by Title 18 Chapter 61 §6109(e)(1)(i) is clearly too broad when a child like Sheriff David decides to wave the all-empowering sword of injustice against the citizens of Beaver County. I can only hope that he gets held accountable for this and all his other offenses. I just wish that some of the people that were denied would have filed an appeal and made Sheriff David face a judge and explain his denials and exactly why he denied that person. Sheriff David’s denial letters for character and reputation simply state “you have been denied under §6109(e)(1)(i).” I know because I’ve seen it. This is unlawful per Caba v. Weaknecht. Per that decision, the issuing authority is not allowed to simply state the law granting him the authority to deny or revoke a permit, but also the EXACT REASON for the denial or revocation.

      (0)
      • One person DID do that, that we know of, and now, it’s sitting with Judge Tesla, who must make a ruling on if he should get his permit back or not. Also, the person whos permit was revoked was also a raging lunatic, who got himself banned from here….

        (0)
    • By the way @bigmac….the sheriff’s policy makes him a raging hypocrite. He has a criminal record, open to anyone who chooses to look for it. It’s not been expunged or anything, the charges and pleas are all online.
      So, our sheriff obviously does not practice what he preaches….

      (0)
      • I agree, Nikki P. I also assume, as you likely would, that all people denied permits are not unstable or irresponsible, just sometimes exploited. (It’s unfortunate that the fellow you mention undermined himself). And that is why they should check into their permit denials again and consider personal or class actions. John Paul has opened a virtual treasure trove of information here in the application and denial files. I can only anticipate further articles here, once John Paul has had time to research, compare notes and crunch the numbers.

        (0)
  14. Sheriff David is the one who should NOT have a gun permit…Isn’t he the one who pointed a gun at a reporter and then threatened to kill to others on one of his tirades? Take his permit away his crime is worse than any ones………………DAHH just saying.

    (0)
  15. @ohbrother, PSP is babysitting 376. Lol

    (0)
  16. Well here wego again. Tony Berosh must be having nightmares every night about this ASSHOLE and tthe rest of his gestapo ! Where is Kathleen Kane ? During her run for office she stated that she would not tolerate corruption of elected officials. Well, what the hell is she waiting for? This nut is handing himself to her on a silver platter. I think if the State Police (the Real Police) had enough info they would bang his decrepid little ass again.

    (0)
  17. SpeakTheTruthToo

    You can’t make this shit up!

    (0)
  18. Assuming that this policy continues, in a very short while after Tony follows through with charges on the multitude of illegal actions, there won’t be any deputies or sheriffs in Beaver County who will be eligible to carry a concealed weapon. While I would like to say that I’m surprised that George David is making up the law rather than enforcing the existing law, there have been so many issues in the past year that nothing that this man does surprises me. My question is where is the red line….the line he has to cross before the legally elected legislative representatives begin the process of having him removed from office?

    (0)
  19. He did this to me. I had a DUI almost 30 years ago and nothing else. I past the state police PIC and he still denied me. I talked to state police and a guy with the ATF and they told me that I should not be denied for a DUI. I talked to the sheriff about this but he still denied me. If I can file charges against him I will.

    (0)
    • Go to the DA’s office and tell them you want to press charges against him under section 6119 of the Uniform Firearms Act. If they’ll file charges against someone for violating the act by lying on an application to get a permit they better press charges against the Sheriff for illegally denying people their rights because of his own ego driven policies.

      He’s been told many times he can’t be denying people for a DUI but he does it anyway because no one will tell him what to do.

      (0)
  20. I will donate my money and time to a suitable candidate that runs against George David. Red lines, state prosecutors and the State Police Cavalry are nice to wish for, but only George David’s removal from office will work permanently. This is an all-consuming, chronic malignancy that directly hurts people, and it must be removed, legally. Psychological pathology is obviously present here, as well as intentional malfeasance, and it won’t cure itself, because it can’t. Pony up, put your resources where your mouths are, and make a difference.

    (0)
  21. I was denied in June of 2010. It my be to late to file charges now but I think I’ll go down today and try again.

    (0)
  22. THEY HAVE MY VOTE!!! NEVER WILL I VOTE sTAIGHT TICKET!!!!! LOOK WHERE IT GOT US THAT BUM HAS TO LEAVE EVEN IN QUIP! GEORGE BOY THE CHEIF LEAVING MAYOR NEXT! HELL I SHOULD RUN FOR THOSE JOB ALL YOU GOT TO BE IS CORRUPT HA!HA! WHERE my doggs at!!!!!”!”

    (0)
  23. Remember the constable that David gave a free permit to and was charged with beating an Aliquippa Police officer almost to death ? Yes, a long time ago but does he deserve a permit ? Did Mr. Williams, whom I don’t know, A George David supporter threatening to use his gun on afro Americans, deserve a permit. It seems that he was a walking time bomb. I hope that the 300 people denied raise all kind of hell. We impeached a president of the U.S. why can’t anyone get rid of this tyrant ?

    (0)
  24. Can you even imagine what else G.D. has done that J.P. can’t uncover. That’s what scares the shit outta me!

    Side note, Nice report J.P.!
    (Yeah, I said it!)

    (0)
    • For once, I agree with you, avi.

      (0)
    • @avi…Oh yes, GD has done some other shady things, no doubt.. and a few “hidden secrets” which i’m sure JP will one day expose him to!! Never underestimate JP’s talent for uncovering truths!!! :cool:

      (0)
  25. My wife and I both went down to apply today and this time it was different from the last time. She told both off us that the PICS was researching us and she would give us a call within 15 days. The last time I went she seen the DUI on my record and denied me without running the PICS. She only ran the PICS when I went back and told the sheriff I wanted a denial letter so I could appeal. Then she ran it and I past it, she told me I was still denied. I should of appealed it but let it go. We will see what happens next. This time I will not let it go.

    (0)
    • Silence_Dogood

      First off, the obligitory “I am not a lawyer. Nothing I say should be taken as legal advice. Please consult an attorney.” With that said, hopefully your denial letter comes in the format that I’ve seen in the past. “You are denied under Title 18 Chapter 61 §6109 “Character and Reputation.”” If your denial letter says that and that alone, then when you appeal it, it will likely be overturned. Per Caba v. Weaknecht, the issuing authority must not only state the statute giving him the authority to deny, but also the specific reason. He is required to perform an investigation and, if questioned, provide specific reasons to include witnesses and any information that was used in his investigation to allow him to come to his decision. Since our sheriff plays by his own rules, when confronted by the judge to provide his proof that your character and reputation are such to be a danger to public safety, he will only be able to say “He had a DUI xxx days/months/years ago.” Because a lone DUI is not a prohibiting offense under §6109, the presiding judge will most likely issue an order requiring the sheriff to issue the LTCF without delay.

      (0)
    • She will phone you? Hmmm… Well, please post here later. Others are probably following this. Thanks.

      (0)
  26. That is the denial letter I got in 2010. We will see what happens this time.

    (0)
    • Silence_Dogood

      Please note that there is a time frame in which you must appeal. Under PA Code, Title 210, Part 1, Art. 2, Ch. 9, Rule 903 – Time for Appeal

      (a) General Rule – Except as otherwise prescribed by this rule, the notice of appeal required by Rule 902 (manner of taking appeal) shall be filed within 30 days after the entry of the order from which the appeal is taken.

      But here’s where a problem lies. An order is supposed to have a case # assigned to it, but the sheriff’s denial letters do not provide one. Because of this, the appellate must pay a fee of $125 if I recall correctly to file the appeal, then appear in front of either Judge Richard Mancini or Judge C. Gus Kwidis (I’m not 100% sure which one) during open motions court to present your appeal to the presiding judge.

      (0)
  27. Ok question, and I’m asking because I know there are people that post on here that can answer. Business’s, corporations, and especially military generate minimum policies and procedures when the company is created and those policies likely grow, well more like evolve as time goes on. Now using the military as an example, a branch of military has established policies and guidelines that govern that particular branch. Now each unit’s Commanding Officer within that branch is given “AT DESCRETION” Authority. Which means as long as they are within those minimum guidelines established by that branch, they have the authority to create policies tailored to that specific unit.

    For example the Navy may say that you can have certain personal effects while stationed on a ship, but the commanding officer says no.

    First question is does each Sheriff that is elected have that authority to change certain policies at their DESCRETION.

    Do most people realize what NON Violent crimes in pa consist of……..

    28-BURGLARY, STRUCTURE
    29-BURGLARY, DWELLING
    32-BURGLARY/TRESPASS, OTHER
    33-GRAND THEFT, OTHER
    34-GRAND THEFT, AUTOMOBILE
    35-STOLEN PROPERTY
    36-FORGERY/COUNTERFEITING
    37-WORTHLESS CHECKS
    38-FRAUDULENT PRACTICES
    39-OTHER THEFT/PROPERTY DAMAGE
    40-DRUGS, MANUFACTURE/SALE/PURCHASE
    41-DRUGS, TRAFFICKING
    42-DRUGS, POSSESSION/OTHER
    46-ESCAPE
    48-DUI, NO INJURY
    50-TRAFFIC, OTHER
    51-RACKETEERING
    52-POLLUTION/HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

    Now I do think 1 DUI is a little much, people make mistakes. But for one minute forget that most of you disapprove of the sheriff, do we really think that these sort of crimes deserve a concealed weapons privilege.
    And I say privilege and not right because I am acknowledging that you have to act in a manner consistant with the law to be issued one.
    The PA ARD program says all non violent crimes are eligible, if that’s the case I would likely screen the same. I’m all about second amendment rights, but for those who deserve it.
    ( and for anyone who attempts to take this out of context, there are accept ions

    (0)
    • I don’t know, So True. I am not a Second Amendment lawyer. When I got my permit, that was in another PA county, and it was straightforward. The Sheriff’s department followed the law, which I had researched and understood at the time. It too was straightforward. There was none of this “making up the rules” for the local Sheriff’s department. I lived in an area where a gun permit was almost a right of passage like a driving license. This matter would have been laughable.

      (0)
    • Silence_Dogood

      I understand your concerns, SoTrue. One thing that you have to keep in mind is that, while those crimes may be considered non-violent, you also have to take into account the maximum prison sentence (not the sentence given, but the MAXIMUM sentence) for committing one of those crimes.

      While the drug crimes are already covered under §6109(e)(1)(ii), the remainder should be covered under §6109(e)(1)(viii) “An individual who is charged with or has been convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year except as provided for in section 6123 (relating to waiver of disability or pardons).”

      (0)
  28. Yes raven that’s exactly what I was thinking. Hmmm sounds like some kind of stall tactic.

    (0)
  29. Love your stories- it’s a shame they are never a shock. That’s our courthouse- one big box of cronyism!

    (0)
  30. Perhaps the statue of limitations has expired, but David commited anoyher crime. No matter how one looks at this he was (and still) overstepping his boundaries. Add this up to all we know about this nut case and STILL he remains sheriff. PLEASE< PLEASE someone, look into this !

    (0)
  31. John Paul: Does Stolfer or McCormick offer any advice about how to address this matter?

    (0)
    • Silence_Dogood

      It’s funny you should bring that up because I once stopped in the Prothonotary’s office and spoke to Nancy Werme about appealing a denial a few months back and she told me that no one has ever tried to appeal a denial of an LTCF in Beaver County as long as she’s known. She actually had to call the Allegheny County Prothonotary’s office to find out what the process is.

      (0)
      • I appreciate how people weighed in on this topic today, but when expertise might be available from these sources, why not try to get it? Perhaps they could give an answer here, in the comments, or in an Op-Ed piece. It could just be a legal interpretation with no opinions. Obviously the matter is important, and approaching it in a second-guessing, trial-and-error manner could be self-defeating.

        (0)
      • @Raven:
        The problem with that is, while most wouldn’t take it as “legal advise”, there is always the slim possibility that someone might, and end up further in the hole than when they started. The smartest thing for anyone to do in this matter would be to consult with a Second Amendment attorney. Also, each persons’ circumstance is different also, so an attorney would be able to advise them correctly dependent on the situation.

        (0)
      • This story is a prime example were the need for complete transparency is needed. First of all I’m curious about this provision. It’s at the sheriffs discretion to deny a CWP to any individual convicted of a crime based on their “character and reputation”. Clearly that’s based off of his opinion and the facts provided to him.

        Question #1…. How many CWP has he actually APPROVED to individuals with records compared to the 300 he allegedly denied?

        #2…. Are the CWP denials in other counties consistant with Beaver County? And I don’t just mean the number of cases but the individuals involved.

        #3…. Legislation was written and approved in the 80′s. There have been several sheriffs in the last 33 years, what types of circumstances did these gentlemen deny.

        #4….Character and Reputation are exactly that. Does this legislation list guidelines that provide assistance when determining eligibility for convicted individual, or are the sheriffs to use basic common sense when deciding whether an individual is responsible enough to carry a gun.

        #5 When evaluating these individuals character and reputation, is it based solely on his or her arrest, how they have conducted themselves after their arrest, how many run ins with the law they had prior to their that didnt result in an arrest but was conduct unbecoming of a citizen, have they had a drug or alcohol problem before and after their arrest.

        So lets throw this scenario out there: (very hypothetical and I am implecating absolutely no one)

        A well known person from let’s say aliquippa ( since people have such a hard on for this town and the sheriff was a former Aliquippa policemen) is a frequent and social drinker. A well known trouble maker ( fights, etc…) but has never been arrested. He gets a DUI and recieved ARD. He pays all of his fines and successfully completes the program. BUT he returns back to his old habits of drinking and getting into altercations. He really doesn’t do enough to get arrested but does have several passive aggressive run ins with police and bar owners. Years go buy and now he wants a gun. The state if PA says legally this person can have a gun. But the sheriff knows this guy from previous run ins and uses the discretion afforded him by this provision and says no.

        These questions I present are important because the way this article reads the sheriff has final approval based on what HE interprets from the information provided to him.
        In saying that, it is also the resonsibilty for the person denied to appeal. And if that person has a bases to his or her appeal then the decision will be overturned.

        These are important questions and I realize some are very difficult to answer. However, I believe in the “interest of full disclosure” they should be.

        Good Day

        (0)
  32. This has to be the most informative comments section ever! Great points and info shared. :thumbsup:

    (0)
  33. This explains a lot

    (0)
  34. Good points, Nikki.

    (0)
  35. I’m tired of the George David soap opera.This will be settled at the next election. The real travesty in this county is the sale of Friendship Ridge and the implications it will have to those in need of long term care from now on. Capitalism and it’s two stooge political parties can not solve that .

    (0)
  36. Time to follow colorados lead and recall his ass.

    (0)
  37. @SoTrue

    All of those factors you mentioned are to be taken into consideration when using §6109(e)(1)(i) to deny a License To Carry a Firearm (LTCF). For the best understanding of how this clause is to be used, I recommend you read through the Caba v. Weaknecht decision as it was the most recent and best test case for using the character and reputation clause to revoke/deny a LTCF.

    In this case, the presiding Judge, Judge Brobson, decided that all the things you mentioned were to be considered when revoking or denying a LTCF. That clause was designed to help the issuing authority to make a decision of a persons eligibility for carrying a concealed firearm based on their past offenses, the reputation they have in the community, and if the person truly would be a danger to public safety should they be granted the ability to carry a concealed firearm. The problem lies in the fact that our sheriff, either through laziness or sheer arrogance, decided on a blanket policy of “Any criminal conviction, no matter how minor = no LTCF.” Unfortunately, here in Beaver County, not one person, upon issue of denial, has ever had the gumption to challenge the sheriff’s decision. They’ve just taken it as the final word (most likely because the sheriff’s denial letters state that “Unless your record is expunged, this decision is final.”) Because of this, the sheriff has never been held accountable to his unlawful blanket policy. Caba v. Weaknecht set the requirement of not only stating the statute granting the authority of denial, but also the specific reason. The purpose of this is so that, upon denial, the appellate knew exactly what it was they had to rectify or challenge in their appeal. Without this, the appellate is essentially walking blind. There are no facts corroborating the sheriff’s decision of denial aside from a criminal conviction, and no witnesses to testify to the appellate character and reputation to be challenged.

    Here’s a recent denial letter received from the sheriff’s office:

    “Dear Applicant:

    You have recently applied for a License to Carry a Firearm through this office. This letter is to inform you that the application has been denied in accordance with 18 Pa. C.S.A. 6109(e)(1)(i), which states that a license shall not be issued to any individual whose character and reputation is such that the individual would be likely to act in a manner contrary to public safety.

    At this juncture, the only recourse available would be to contact the Clerk of Courts in the county where the offense took place, and inquire if the case is eligible to be expunged. Once the case is expunged, you may reapply through this office. Otherwise, the decision is final.

    George J. David
    Sheriff of Beaver County”

    In this, the applicant has no idea what offense was the “prohibiting offense,” what county the offense took place in, or who to contact aside from “the clerk of courts in the county where the offense took place.” At this point, the only thing the recient could possibly think to do would be to try and get a background check to see what offense may be on their record and in what county.

    This is why I’ve stated above that, if challenged, the sheriff’s denial SHOULD be shot down based on the statute and current case law. He would have no evidence aside from a minor criminal conviction to justify a denial or revocation. Caba v. Weaknecht, though ultimately a loss for Caba as his revocation was justified, was a victory for the firearms community in that it set the bar for the issuing authority’s use of the character and reputation clause. Now we only need the people to stand up and hold our sheriff accountable to the standards.

    (0)
    • thank you for the response, that’s great info. I have a few further questions. You seem to be pretty knowledgeable.
      There seems to be a disconnect between moral and legal. Or a fine line. Let me explain why I say that.
      First of all it is explained in the report that once qualified from PICS, the person is then researched under JNET. That to me sounds like the sheriff’s office is taking the proper precautions and taking a second look. JP put it out there that there were 300 or so people. Why not black out the names and identifying information and show the offenses ( transparency).

      Again I ask how many CWP were issued in these last two years and how many we’re issued to convicted individuals compared to to the 300 denied.

      Now going back to the DESCRETION of the Sheriffs Office. To me, and I mean TO ME, it sounds, right or wrong, that the policy set up by the sheriff was within his right given him.
      The SO is requiring someone with a conviction to get an expungement. I have no problem with that.

      To determine which charges on your record can be removed through the expungement process, you look at the outcome of the case. If you were convicted, typically the disposition will be listed as pled guilty or found guilty. If the charges against you were dropped, the disposition may say dismissed.
      Charges with the following dispositions may be eligible for expungement: – Withdrawn
      - Dismissed
      - Nolle Prossed
      - Not Guilty
      - Disposition Unreported/No Further Action Taken
      Additionally, if you pled guilty or were found guilty of a summary offense, the conviction for that summary offense may be eligible for expungement if you have remained free from arrest or prosecution for 5 years following the conviction.

      Other requirements: for Summary cases
      You have been convicted of or pled guilty to a summary offense in Centre County; AND
      You have not been arrested or prosecuted for any crime (including summary offenses) in any county in the five years since being convicted of the offense that you wish to expunge*;
      OR
      You have completed an alternative punishment program for the offense that you wish to expunge;
      OR
      The citation was otherwise dismissed.

      In court cases:
      There is no record of a disposition by the court within 18 months after the date of your arrest and it is verified that no disposition is available and no action is pending;
      OR
      A court orders the expungement; OR
      a. You are at least 21 years old and your case was a conviction for violation of underage drinking, minor’s law, or 18 Pa.C.S.A. §6308; AND
      b. You have satisfied all terms and conditions of the sentence imposed for the violation, including any suspension of driving privileges;
      a. b.
      You are at least 70 years old; AND
      You have not been arrested or prosecuted for ten (10) years following your final release from confinement or supervision;

      Sorry about the cutting and pasting but this info is very important and speaks volumes.. If you do not meet these requirements then you shouldn’t carry a fire arm. And even after this he still gives an individual and opportunity by charging a fee In the event that you do not meet the requirements for and expungement.

      JP writes that “David’s policy is to automatically deny gun permits to any individual who JNET shows has been convicted of any crime, even if that crime is not violent, was committed decades ago, and even if the offense is not a disqualifying one under Pennsylvania state law.”

      And that “If they are unable to get an expungement, or are unwilling to pay the necessary fees to obtain one, they are denied the right to carry a concealed firearm.”
      Ask yourself this question, if the conviction is that insignificant, why are they not eligible. Wouldn’t we rather be safe than sorry. With all the human, grammatical errors, and miscommunication between counties, I would expect it necessary to be cautious. I do remember reading that Hicks lied on his background check and it wasn’t discovered because the offense happened in another county.

      (0)
      • Silence_Dogood

        “Ask yourself this question, if the conviction is that insignificant, why are they not eligible.”

        This statement you made completely sums up the problem. While Sheriff David may be going the extra mile to have Stephanie check JNET, which is beyond the requirement of checking PICS, his blanket policy of stating that “any and all criminal convictions are denied” is unlawful.

        Requiring a person to seek an expungement is an extraneous cost and hassle that is not required under the UFA (18 PA C.S. Ch. 61). Also, if the sheriff denies an application under §6109(e)(1)(i) because the infraction the person committed does not fall under any of the other requirements, he has already seen the infraction and obtaining an expungement doesn’t change the fact that the crime occurred and he now knows about it, only that it doesn’t show up anymore. The sheriff, by using his blanket policy, is effectively not investigating a person’s character and reputation. This is unlawful because, to use this section, he must state all the factors that together allowed him to come to his decision of denial, then provide that to the applicant to allow them their due process. He is denying them their 5th Amendment right by only stating statute.

        Comparing the 300+ denials to those issued to convicted individuals in Beaver County is impossible as the sheriff has put forth a blanket policy of denying any and all persons convicted of crimes, regardless of severity.

        To obtain an expungement can be a costly endeavor. That’s why it’s not a requirement set forth in the UFA. If the process is not done correctly, it is all for nothing. That’s why it SHOULD be done by an attorney familiar with the process. Initially, there is a cost of $180 to file the paperwork. Once you tack on fees for a lawyer, you could be talking thousands of dollars. Does that seem reasonable to you for someone convicted of petty theft for stealing a candy bar 20 years ago and hasn’t done anything since? It doesn’t to me; but that person would be denied until they received an expungement under Sheriff David’s current policy. It’s for reasons like this that the writers of the licensing legislation sought to call out the crimes they saw fit to outright prohibit a person from obtaining a license.

        It’s because of these reasons that the use of the character and reputation clause should be monitored carefully. While I agree with denying a person who has a history of consistently committing non-violent offenses, I don’t agree with a blanket policy. Each person should be handled on a case-by-case basis if they come up with something in their record. That’s the purpose of the investigation, to see if it’s someone who’s always in trouble or someone who messed up one time in their life and has since changed.

        (0)
  38. Having a gun for self defense is a right. Why would anyone want to apply for an illegal permit. murdock v commonwealth, decided by the Supreme Court of the United States said that you cannot license a right, or charge a fee for the practice of a right.

    (0)
    • Silence_Dogood

      The argument to this is that in PA, they’re not charging you for the right to carry a firearm, only the ability to conceal it. Also, laws providing some restrictions on the Second Amendment have been upheld as Constitutional in such cases as Heller v. District of Columbia where the Supreme Court opined that no right is absolute and can have certain restrictions applied to it.

      (0)
  39. Having a gun for self defense is a right. Why would anyone want to apply for an illegal permit. murdock v commonwealth, decided by the Supreme Court of the United States said that you cannot license a right, or charge a fee for the practice of a right.

    (0)
  40. You do realize that PA is an “Open Carry” state. If you are denied a LTCF permit, just strap your gun on your hip openly and go about your business. Perfectly legal IF you are allowed to own a firearm! Just don’t drive around in your car with it on your hip. Put it in your trunk, unloaded.

    (0)
    • Silence_Dogood

      While PA is an Open Carry state, having a firearm, as defined in §6102(2), in a vehicle is unlawful per §6106 – Firearms not to be carried without a license. In that section, an exception is set forth to citizens ONLY if the the person in transporting directly to or from a gunsmith, FFL, or shooting range. If any stops are made en route, the possession of the firearm, regardless of location and storage situation, becomes unlawful absent possession of an LTCF or permit issued under the laws of any other state.

      § 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
      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.

      Exceptions -
      (4) Any persons engaged in target shooting with a
      firearm, if such persons are at or are going to or from their
      places of assembly or target practice and if, while going to
      or from their places of assembly or target practice, the
      firearm is not loaded.

      (8) Any person while carrying a firearm which is not
      loaded and is in a secure wrapper from the place of purchase
      to his home or place of business, or to a place of repair,
      sale or appraisal or back to his home or place of business,
      or in moving from one place of abode or business to another
      or from his home to a vacation or recreational home or
      dwelling or back, or to recover stolen property under section
      6111.1(b)(4) (relating to Pennsylvania State Police), or to a
      place of instruction intended to teach the safe handling, use
      or maintenance of firearms or back or to a location to which
      the person has been directed to relinquish firearms under 23
      Pa.C.S. § 6108 (relating to relief) or back upon return of
      the relinquished firearm or to a licensed dealer’s place of
      business for relinquishment pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. § 6108.2
      (relating to relinquishment for consignment sale, lawful
      transfer or safekeeping) or back upon return of the
      relinquished firearm or to a location for safekeeping
      pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. § 6108.3 (relating to relinquishment
      to third party for safekeeping) or back upon return of the
      relinquished firearm.
      (12) A person who has a lawfully issued license to carry
      a firearm pursuant to section 6109 (relating to licenses) and
      that said license expired within six months prior to the date
      of arrest and that the individual is otherwise eligible for
      renewal of the license.
      (15) Any person who possesses a valid and lawfully
      issued license or permit to carry a firearm which has been
      issued under the laws of another state, regardless of whether
      a reciprocity agreement exists between the Commonwealth and
      the state under section 6109(k), provided:
      (i) The state provides a reciprocal privilege for
      individuals licensed to carry firearms under section
      6109.
      (ii) The Attorney General has determined that the
      firearm laws of the state are similar to the firearm laws
      of this Commonwealth.

      (0)
  41. This statement you made completely sums up the problem. While Sheriff David may be going the extra mile to have Stephanie check JNET, which is beyond the requirement of checking PICS, his blanket policy of stating that “any and all criminal convictions are denied” is unlawful.

    I wanted to comment on that. You say Stephanie is checking JNET, this suggests that she is giving the info to the sheriff. The very info he is using to make his decision. And it’s not “any and all criminal convictions are denied” it’s “any and all criminal convictions are denied without expungement or fees”
    And I’m not trying to be an condescending ass, this is what in reading.

    (0)
    • Silence_Dogood

      But the problem is that he’s using any conviction that shows up on JNET for the denial. The fees that JP is referring to are the costs incurred when filing for an expungement. Again, a perfectly spotless record is not a requirement to obtain a LTCF, yet the Beaver County Sheriff page on the county website specifically states “the applicant must have NO CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS.” That is an extraneous requirement set forth by Sheriff David. An applicant needs only to meet the requirements set forth in §6109(e)(1). His blanket policy effectively shows his laziness in providing a thorough investigation and instead relies on a single conviction showing up in JNET as his grounds for denial without investigating the surrounding circumstances such as the precise infraction and its severity or the length of time since the conviction took place.. Because of this, if appealed, his denials would not hold up in court.

      (0)
  42. Joshua Prince, Esq.

    If anyone has been denied since Sept 11, 2012 and the denial was based on character and reputation but no further information was provided and you are interested in potentially being part of a class action lawsuit, please feel free to contact my office. Also, I am curious how the Beaver Countian uncovered 300 instances in the past 2 years. If the Sheriff is making this information available, I am additionally interested in a class action lawsuit against him and the county. I already am litigating a class action against the City of Philadelphia for disclosing confidential LTCF information.

    (0)
  43. Are the application and denial documents public records or confidential? What about the JNET and PICS access and information? Who is permitted access to these records?

    (0)
  44. @sd: “Words of wisdom…” I don’t think so. He might be an asset, but be careful of the shiny red apples you bite into.

    Go to his website, and spend some time there, before you believe this is a knight in shining armor here to vanquish King George and his dragons.

    (0)
  45. I just got a call from the sheriffs office. The sheriff wants to meet with my wife and I this afternoon concerning are applications. Hmmm

    (0)
    • You might want to take a neutral, knowledgeable person along with you, optimally a lawyer, to witness what is said and done. If you are a “test case”, it could have ramifications later and for other people. Given the history of actions in that office, it might help to be skeptical and to document it. Let us know if he offers to take you and your wife to Starbucks’ afterward.

      (0)
    • BewareOfSheriff

      be VERY careful! David lies! he’ll probably have attorney MYRON SATANSBITCH there too. Tell him youll meet but you want to record the entire conversation using your cellphone see what he says or better get an ATTORNEY dont go in there without one of those two things :omg:

      (0)
      • Yes, B of S: There’s no way in hell I would walk into that office alone and unprepared. I would consider it a trap until after I walked out.

        (0)
  46. Raven would you want to go with us.

    (0)
    • I’d go with you if I had the means. Unfortunately, I carpool to work, so I’m stuck here til 4…

      (0)
    • That would be great. I wish I could. But, no. I’m not a coward. Just a realist. I don’t trust him or his associates, and I would never rule out retaliation of some type. If I get involved, it will be in the future, when the election arrives. I know I can be of assistance then. Who knows? You might see me in those halls, but just not know it. What time is the meeting?

      (0)
  47. Thanks dogood but meeting at 1:00. Anyone else ?

    (0)
  48. 1:00. Thanks.

    (0)
  49. Well my record is the same as 2010 when I was denied. This time my wife and I were both approved.

    (0)
  50. So the sheriff is softening and now wants to make ammends. Bullshit, if one robs a bank and later returns the money, a crime was commited. David knows he was wrong so now he’s going to be a nice guy. No way, he must somehow be charged with this one also. Any takers ?I doubt it !

    (0)
  51. It wasn’t bad there was a deputy in the room and my sister in law who knows the sheriff went with us. Rite of the bat he got upset when he thought I answered a question with a attitude. It took all I had to not go off on him when he started to lie about how I was denied in 2010 because of something that was on my sons record. My son has the same name as me but did not have anything on his record at that time and in 2010 the only thing that showed on my record was my dui. If anyone was illegally denied in the past it is probably a good time to apply again. If you are illegally denied again then nail the Bastard like I wanted to.

    (0)
    • Thanks very much, beenthere. It was a fitting culmination of a very good day of worthwhile comments here. I hope others take your lead. With an attorney, Prince, looking into things, you might be rewarded for your efforts. At least you have your permit. A huge thanks goes to JP for uncovering this.

      (0)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>