Friday, September 17, 2010

The Other Loophole

From the Philadelphia Inquirer:

When police stripped Marqus Hill of his permit to carry a gun in Philadelphia after a 2005 confrontation with officers, Hill didn't let that stop him: He just applied for a firearms license from Florida. Though police said Hill had lost a 2008 appeal to win back his Philadelphia permit and reacted by assaulting a police officer in court, Florida mailed him a gun license last year. Early Sunday morning, police said, Hill, 28, gunned down an 18-year-old who allegedly broke into his car, shooting him 13 times.


Gun rights activists should be ashamed of themselves, starting with Sebastian whose blog has always mocked and trivialized this situation.

Robert's another one. He's written a lengthy and truly incredible hatchet job on the story, at the end of which I thought Marqus Hill might receive a medal.

Marqus Hill is an extreme example of the problem, but imagine the potential of the "3,000 to 4,000 people in Pennsylvania [who] have obtained firearms permits from Florida."

What's your opinion? Can we call this "the other loophole" without getting all side tracked? We're talking about some crappy laws in PA and FL which allow this blatant impropriety to happen.

Please leave a comment.

23 comments:

  1. Since the PA legal system seems so reluctant to convict him to actually provide a record that would prevent his obtaining of a Florida permit, I have to wonder what the outcome of his current case will be.

    I will withold judgement until the courts actually apply some.

    ReplyDelete
  2. So, for this to be "the other loophole," I take it there's a first "loophole"? What's it called, the Bill of Rights?

    ReplyDelete
  3. So now you're mocking the last two gunbloggers who haven't banned you for trolling?

    ReplyDelete
  4. VD, there are some procedural safeguards in the US (and other English Based Common Law systems), such as proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. A good lawyer can pull all sorts of tricks to get someone like this off the hook.

    But, even though he hasn't been convicted, the arrests remain on his record until they are either expunged or he receives a pardon. In addition, the law has changed such that summary and low level misdemeanours can be expunged after a short period. That means one can no longer has to go through the pardon process to get some convictions erased from their records.

    But, even if his permit has been revoked in PA, he can apply for and receive a permit in FL (as occurred in the case I mentioned).

    So, it isn't the PA legal system, but the fact that there is no longer any discretion in the permit process.

    A person can have a long arrest record of violent crimes, yet not be convicted.

    And he will receive a permit.

    Laci

    ReplyDelete
  5. "A person can have a long arrest record of violent crimes, yet not be convicted.

    And he will receive a permit."

    So, you're saying it is a PA legal system problem, then, because someone who is arrested multiple times for violent crimes but never convicted is either
    A) not the correct person to be arrested, or
    B) there is a failure in the conviction process if the person is truly guilty. Sometimes that happens (like OJ, for example).

    As for the permit process, it is exactly as it should be. An arrest, or even a string of arrests, should never be enough to disqualify someone from obtaining a permit.

    ReplyDelete
  6. or because witnesses don't show up due to intimidation.

    or the case drags on forever and is terminated due to the speedy trial rule.

    Or in the case of OJ, the jury decided to "nullify" the arrest due to Mark Fuhrman saying the magic word.

    Or... Or... Or... Or...

    But, that's fine if it doesn't bother you and you want to let people the cops have good reason to suspect, but for whatever reason they are not convicted (charges withdrawn, nolle prosecui, etc.) carry firearms.

    I would add that the old permissive systems had been proposed by the Pistol Owners Association back in the 1930s, but that is just an interesting historical footnote.

    Laci

    ReplyDelete
  7. And with your OJ example, there are also two forms of liability for certain acts: civil and criminal. for example, there are civil and criminal forms of assault. The burdens of proof are different between the two.

    In OJ's case, he was found not guilty by a criminal jury, yet a civil jury found him guilty in the matter.

    His civil judgement cannot be used against him.

    In fact, OJ could come out and say, "I killed Nicole and Ron in cold blood" with no criminal liability due to double jeopardy rules.

    Using your example, shall issue requires that he receive a permit to carry.

    Laci

    ReplyDelete
  8. A person can have a long arrest record of violent crimes, yet not be convicted.

    And he will receive a permit.


    Good! We live in America. It's still a free country and people have rights, no matter how much folks like MikeB and Laci want to strip them from us.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "But, that's fine if it doesn't bother you and you want to let people the cops have good reason to suspect, but for whatever reason they are not convicted (charges withdrawn, nolle prosecui, etc.) carry firearms."

    Good. If they haven't been convicted by a jury of their peers, then we must presume their innocence. Even for OJ.

    Of course, now that he was convicted of armed robbery and kidnapping, using him as an example, he would be disqualified to receive a LTCH in PA.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "A person can have a long arrest record of violent crimes, yet not be convicted.

    And he will receive a permit."


    As well he should. Why should victims of false arrest be denied rights.

    ReplyDelete
  11. So Laci, what punishments/restrictions should be enacted on MikeB because he (presumably) was never convicted, but admits openly to committing felony crimes?

    ReplyDelete
  12. I say he loses his 1st Amendment rights and can no longer blog.

    That OK with you MikeB the criminal?

    ReplyDelete
  13. The dog:

    So, it isn't the PA legal system, but the fact that there is no longer any discretion in the permit process.

    Heh--"discretion in the permit process"--code language for "police power to arbitrarily deprive rights."

    ReplyDelete
  14. Isn't the whole beusiness about that rule which allows the local cops to nix a person's application? It's the difference between the shall issue and may issue states, right.

    I've always maintained that although I realize the police are terrible abusers of their power in many instances, they often have a unique vantage point when determining if a person can responsibly carry a gun or not.

    Let's say 21-year-old Johnny who lives in a small town in PA applies for a licence. The local cops know him well from his juvenile antics, drinking and drugging even an assault or two that were plea bargained down.

    They determine he should not have a gun licence. That's how it works. And just like the trigger happy cops I often write about are a small minority, abuse of this power is also very small compared to the great good it serves: keeping guns away from dangerous people, as Helmke always says.

    ReplyDelete
  15. And, as I pointed out the last time we talked about this--almost every state that has shall issue has a line in their law that allows for the issuing authority to deny the permit, for exactly the reasons you stated. They have some discretion in who gets a permit. Some states refer to it as a "character clause." Whatever name it goes by, in a shall issue state it has to be more than "I don't like him," or "I have a bad feeling about this."

    In may issue states, they can deny and not even have to tell you why.

    In other words, the law you want exists. The situation you want already exists. So, now what?

    ReplyDelete
  16. "Isn't the whole beusiness about that rule which allows the local cops to nix a person's application? It's the difference between the shall issue and may issue states, right."

    Sure is...too bad PA is a Shall Issue state and may issue actions are illegal.

    Again MikeB, Laci, and Jade are pro-criminal!

    ReplyDelete
  17. Jadefool's Biggest (Only?) Cheeleader:

    And just like the trigger happy cops I often write about are a small minority, abuse of this power is also very small compared to the great good it serves: keeping guns away from dangerous people, as Helmke always says.

    Ah--so Jadefool's Biggest (Only?) Cheeleader acknowledges there will be abuse, but only an "acceptable" amount of it. By the way, "discretionary issue" of carry permits would do nothing along the lines of "keeping guns away from dangerous people"--it only means that some (theoretically) "dangerous" people can't carry the gun legally. They can have the gun, and they can carry it, if they're willing to take the legal risk.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Mike: “I've always maintained that although I realize the police are terrible abusers of their power in many instances, they often have a unique vantage point when determining if a person can responsibly carry a gun or not.”

    And in a lot of situations those police determine that NO ONE is responsible enough to carry. My city denies every single applicant.

    ReplyDelete
  19. TS:

    And in a lot of situations those police determine that NO ONE is responsible enough to carry. My city denies every single applicant.

    Jadefool's Biggest (Only?) Cheerleader's idea of the system working just as it ought to.

    ReplyDelete
  20. TS, Then your city must be awash in the blood of law-abiding citizens who can't defend themselves. Do the armed robbers and crack heads realize what easy pickin's there are?

    Or, is it possible that your city enjoys even greater safety and tranquillity due to the lack of guns on the street? I know I'd feel safer there knowing that a simple road rage incident is less likely to turn deadly and knowing that sloppy gun owners who run into the post office aren't leaving their kids in the car with a gun in the glove box.

    ReplyDelete
  21. "I know I'd feel safer there knowing that a simple road rage incident is less likely to turn deadly..."

    What evidence is there of that?

    How does it help to disarm person A who only seeks to protect himself from person B who loses his temper and attempts to harm person A? Why is protecting person B from getting hurt more important than allowing person A to protect himself from person B?

    ReplyDelete
  22. MikeB: “TS, Then your city must be awash in the blood of law-abiding citizens who can't defend themselves. Do the armed robbers and crack heads realize what easy pickin's there are? Or, is it possible that your city enjoys even greater safety and tranquillity due to the lack of guns on the street?”

    Absolutely not. My city is gang infested, violent, and has very high murder rates. A man in my neighborhood was recently mugged and then murdered after handing over his $13. Did you really mean to lob such a softball?

    ReplyDelete
  23. Well, I was hoping you lived in Pleasantville USA.

    No wonder you like guns so much.

    ReplyDelete