Back in May, we covered the unusual case of five members of Philadelphia’s Black Lion Party for International Solidarity losing their concealed carry permits after a tense confrontation with police. At the time, the group argued the city was using Pennsylvania’s vague “good cause” standard to punish them for exercising their First and Second Amendment rights.
Now, the U.S. Department of Justice is officially taking a closer look. And that’s what makes this story much bigger than a dispute involving one activist group.
In June, the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division announced it had opened an investigation into whether the Philadelphia Police Department improperly uses the city’s “good cause” standard to revoke licenses to carry firearms.
According to the department, the investigation will focus on whether officials are relying on vague, discretionary standards that violate the Second Amendment. The DOJ also made clear that its investigation “does not support any armed obstruction of federal or local law enforcement.”
I have directed the Civil Rights Division, through our Second Amendment Section, to defend law-abiding citizens from local authorities who infringe the right to safely carry legal firearms,” Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon said in announcing the investigation. “Law-abiding Americans, regardless of where they live, should not have to worry that their city will revoke their means of self-defense.”
The investigation stems from a January confrontation between members of the Black Lion Party and Philadelphia police officers. Video obtained by 6ABC shows armed members of the group and officers engaged in a heated verbal exchange in North Philadelphia. No shots were fired and no arrests were made, but five members of the group later received notices revoking their licenses to carry firearms.
According to Philadelphia police, the permits were revoked under Pennsylvania’s “good cause” standard, citing concerns over public safety and the permit holders’ “character and reputation.”
That’s exactly what has drawn the DOJ’s attention.
In its announcement, the department pointed to the Supreme Court’s decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, arguing that government officials cannot rely on broad personal discretion when deciding who may exercise a constitutional right.
Civil rights attorney Paul Hoetzenecker, who spoke with 6ABC but is not representing the Black Lion Party members, said the case extends beyond the Second Amendment.
“Ultimately, the paramount issue here is First Amendment rights,” Hoetzenecker said. He argued that the permitting process should not be used to suppress a political viewpoint.
Whether people agree with the Black Lion Party’s tactics is almost beside the point. The DOJ’s investigation isn’t about whether citizens should conduct armed neighborhood patrols. It’s about whether government officials can revoke a carry permit using broad, subjective standards rather than objective legal criteria.
If federal investigators conclude Philadelphia has established a pattern of violating constitutional rights, the Justice Department says it will first seek voluntary changes. If those efforts fail, litigation could follow.
Whatever happens next, this case has evolved well beyond one confrontation on a Philadelphia street. It could become another important test of how far local governments can go when deciding who gets to exercise their 2A rights.
*** Buy and Sell on GunsAmerica! ***
Read the full article here
