Steve in PA
Member
Politicians enacted this bill, but the police are getting the blame.
Man's gun permit fight hits a snag
Man's gun permit fight hits a snag
Court reverses ruling that allowed area man to carry weapon. Original denial came after tax-evasion plea.
By TERRIE MORGAN-BESECKER
[email protected]
WILKES-BARRE - A Sugarloaf Township man's 7-year battle to regain his right to carry a concealed weapon suffered a major setback Monday when the state's Commonwealth Court reversed a ruling that granted him the permit.
The decision is the latest in a long, complex legal battle Michael S. Pecora has waged with the Pennsylvania State Police and the Luzerne County Sheriff's Office.
Pecora had held a concealed weapons permit for about 35 years, but the sheriff's office denied him renewal in 1996 after a state police records check showed Pecora pleaded no contest in 1978 to federal income tax evasion.
The problem: In 1996 the state's Uniform Firearms Act was amended to prohibit persons convicted of crimes punishable by more than one year from owning a firearm. At the time of Pecora's plea, the sentence for tax evasion fit that criteria.
The controversial amendment has led to several court challenges because it resulted in some people convicted of relatively minor, non-violent crimes being permanently banned from owning firearms. Pecora and other plaintiffs have maintained the law unfairly penalizes them because it is being applied retroactively.
Pecora twice took his case to Luzerne County Court, arguing his conviction dealt with a crime involving business, therefore it fell under an exception within the Firearms Act. Two county judges ruled in his favor, once in 1998 and again in 2003, but state police persisted in their appeals and the case landed before Commonwealth Court in September.
The latest appeal before Commonwealth Court was unusual in that Pecora's attorney, Anthony Lucadamo of Hazleton, conceded the Firearms Act precludes Pecora from owning a firearm. That would make the issuance of a concealed weapons permit a moot point, but Lucadamo said on Monday that Pecora persisted with the appeal out of principle.
"He had the license to carry a firearm for many years. He felt strongly it should not be taken away from him," Lucadamo said. "It was principle for him from day one. He knew there was no practical way he could carry a firearm."
Lucadamo tried to distinguish the issue of the gun permit from the ownership issue, saying the Firearms Act prohibition dealt only with ownership.
The Commonwealth Court rejected the argument, noting such a distinction would lead to an "absurd result" that a person could be prohibited from owning a gun, yet be entitled to hold a concealed weapons permit.
Lucadamo said he does not know if Pecora will appeal the case further. He could ask the state Supreme Court to hear the case, but the high court hears only a limited number of cases each year, so there is no guarantee it would consider the appeal.
Man's gun permit fight hits a snag
Man's gun permit fight hits a snag
Court reverses ruling that allowed area man to carry weapon. Original denial came after tax-evasion plea.
By TERRIE MORGAN-BESECKER
[email protected]
WILKES-BARRE - A Sugarloaf Township man's 7-year battle to regain his right to carry a concealed weapon suffered a major setback Monday when the state's Commonwealth Court reversed a ruling that granted him the permit.
The decision is the latest in a long, complex legal battle Michael S. Pecora has waged with the Pennsylvania State Police and the Luzerne County Sheriff's Office.
Pecora had held a concealed weapons permit for about 35 years, but the sheriff's office denied him renewal in 1996 after a state police records check showed Pecora pleaded no contest in 1978 to federal income tax evasion.
The problem: In 1996 the state's Uniform Firearms Act was amended to prohibit persons convicted of crimes punishable by more than one year from owning a firearm. At the time of Pecora's plea, the sentence for tax evasion fit that criteria.
The controversial amendment has led to several court challenges because it resulted in some people convicted of relatively minor, non-violent crimes being permanently banned from owning firearms. Pecora and other plaintiffs have maintained the law unfairly penalizes them because it is being applied retroactively.
Pecora twice took his case to Luzerne County Court, arguing his conviction dealt with a crime involving business, therefore it fell under an exception within the Firearms Act. Two county judges ruled in his favor, once in 1998 and again in 2003, but state police persisted in their appeals and the case landed before Commonwealth Court in September.
The latest appeal before Commonwealth Court was unusual in that Pecora's attorney, Anthony Lucadamo of Hazleton, conceded the Firearms Act precludes Pecora from owning a firearm. That would make the issuance of a concealed weapons permit a moot point, but Lucadamo said on Monday that Pecora persisted with the appeal out of principle.
"He had the license to carry a firearm for many years. He felt strongly it should not be taken away from him," Lucadamo said. "It was principle for him from day one. He knew there was no practical way he could carry a firearm."
Lucadamo tried to distinguish the issue of the gun permit from the ownership issue, saying the Firearms Act prohibition dealt only with ownership.
The Commonwealth Court rejected the argument, noting such a distinction would lead to an "absurd result" that a person could be prohibited from owning a gun, yet be entitled to hold a concealed weapons permit.
Lucadamo said he does not know if Pecora will appeal the case further. He could ask the state Supreme Court to hear the case, but the high court hears only a limited number of cases each year, so there is no guarantee it would consider the appeal.
