Pam Bondi Sends Letter to PA Sheriff

David W. Sunday
Attorney General of Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania Office of the Attorney General
16th Floor, Strawberry Square
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120
Sean P. Kilkenny
Montgomery County Sheriff &
President, Pennsylvania Sheriffs Association
Montgomery County Courthouse, First Floor
P.O. Box 311
Norristown, Pennsylvania 19404
Dear Attorney General Sunday and Sheriff Kilkenny,
I write with concern that county sheriffs in Pennsylvania are administering the
Commonwealth's Uniform Firearms Act in a manner that denies the right to bear arms to out-of
state residents. This practice is unlawful under Pennsylvania law. It also raises serious concerns
under the Second Amendment, which guarantees the right to bear arms in public, 1 as well as the
Privileges and Immunities Clause, which prohibits discriminating against out-of-state citizens by
denying them the exercise of fundamental rights.
The Uniform Firearms Act severely restricts carrying a firearm in public without a
license. Unless licensed, citizens generally may not carry a firearm "in any vehicle" or
"concealed on or about [one's] person."2 Nor may unlicensed citizens generally carry a firearm,
concealed or not, on public property in Philadelphia or in certain other areas.3 Pennsylvania's
licensing scheme also has serious consequences under federal law, which prohibits carrying a
1 New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass 'n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022).
2 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 6106(a).
3 Id §§ 6107--6108; see also Commonwealth v. Hicks, 208 A.3d 916 (Pa. 2019).
Although Pennsylvania affords limited reciprocity to some out-of-state licenses, 18 Pa. Cons.
Stat. §§ 6106(b)( 11) (firearms carried in vehicles), 6106(b)( 15) (statutory reciprocity for states
with "similar ... firearm laws"), the Pennsylvania Attorney General's Office has severely
restricted reciprocity in recent years, including by cancelling reciprocity agreements and by
imposing a residency requirement on out-of-state license holders, see id § 6109(k) (reciprocity
agreements by the Attorney General).
Letter to Attorney General David W. Sunday and Sheriff Sean P. Kilkenny Page 2
firearm within 1,000 feet of a school without a license issued "by the State in which the school
zone is located. "4
Problematically, however, Pennsylvania sheriffs are not properly issuing carry licenses
on a nondiscretionary, nondiscriminatory basis. Pennsylvania law provides that licenses to carry
firearms are available to all adults 21 years of age or older who pay a $20 fee and pass a
background check. 5 But those who live in other states and commute or travel through or within
Pennsylvania face an overlay of arbitrary and unlawful policies by sheriffs who refuse to process
nonresident carry applications. As the website for the Pennsylvania State Police accurately
recounts, many "county sheriffs will not issue nonresident License to Carry permits." 6 That
categorical refusal includes your office, Sheriff Kilkenny,7 as well as the Philadelphia Police
Department and many others. 8 These offices direct out-of-state residents to "try another County
in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania."9 In some geographic areas, such as the metropolitan
Philadelphia region, very few sheriffs Gust 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."10 Only if the
applicant 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."11 But if the
applicant is not a resident of the Commonwealth, the general rule applies that the applicant need
only "apply to a sheriff."12
Once a qualified applicant applies, Pennsylvania law provides that the license "shall be
issued if, after an investigation not to exceed 45 days, it appears that the applicant" does not fall
within a statutory exclusion, such as for conviction of certain crimes, or for whom there is
otherwise "good cause" to deny the license. 13 Confirming that nonresidents are among the
4 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(q)(2)(A), 922(q)(2)(B)(ii), 921(a)(26) (defining "school zone").
5 18 Pa. Cons. Stat.§ 6109.
6 Carrying Firearms in Pennsylvania, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,

https://www.pa.gov/agencies/psp/programs/firearms/carrying-firearms-in

pennsylvania.html#accordion-eet7c4effa-item-759adba049 (last visited Apr. 30, 2025)
7 See Gun Permits, Montgomery County PA,
https://www.montgomerycountypa.gov/40 I/Gun-Permit (last visited Apr. 30, 2025).
8 See License to Carry Firearms, Philadelphia Police Department,
Philadelphia Police Department's Online License to Carry Firearms Permit Director (click "Agree" three
times to view notice pertaining to Non-Pennsylvania Residents) (last visited Apr. 30, 2025)
("The Philadelphia Police Department is not issuing License to Carry to Out of State
Applicants.").
9 Id
10 18 Pa. Cons. Stat.§ 6109(b).
11 Id § 6109(b).
12 Id (emphasis added).
13 Id § 6109(e)(l) (emphasis added).
Letter to Attorney General David W. Sunday and Sheriff Sean P. Kilkenny Page 3
"individual" who are entitled to apply for a license, which ordinarily "shall be issued," the
statutory exclusions include a "resident
of
another state who does not possess a current license"
in his home state,
if
his home state issues licenses. 14 In other words, a "resident
of
another state
who does
...
possess a current license" in his home state is entitled to apply for, and receive, a
license in Pennsylvania.
15
In sum, Pennsylvania law requires all
of
the Commonwealth's sheriffs
to accept nonresident carry applications and commands that they shall issue such licenses. Yet
many Pennsylvania sheriffs are refusing to do so, a fact that appears on the State Police's own
website.
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
mandamus
to compel local licensing agencies to carry out their ministerial duty to entertain a license
application. 16 Nonresidents should not have to do that in Pennsylvania.
But this is not merely a state-law problem. The Supreme Court has been clear that "[t]he
constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not a second-class right, subject to
an entirely different body
of
rules than the other Bill
of
Rights guarantees."
17
A permit
requirement for public carry does not, without more, violate the Second Amendment. However,
in Bruen, the Supreme Court explained the difference between "shall-issue" licensing regimes,
"where authorities must issue concealed-carry licenses whenever applicants satisfy certain
threshold requirements," and "may-issue" regimes, "under which authorities have discretion to
deny concealed-carry licenses even when the applicant satisfies the statutory criteria."
18
The
latter-a
"may-issue
regime"-"is
constitutionally problematic because it grants open-ended
discretion to licensing officials," and the exercise
of
Second Amendment rights cannot be
conditioned on the exercise
of
such discretion. 19
What is happening in Pennsylvania is even worse. Although citizens retain their right to
armed self-defense when they cross state lines, Pennsylvania sheriffs are ignoring state law to
deny carry licenses on a categorical basis, not merely a discretionary one, as in Bruen. The
Supreme Court has warned that "any permitting scheme"---even a shall-issue
regime-"can
be
14
Id § 6109(b), (e)(l), (e)(l)(ix).
15
Id § 6109(e)(l)(ix).16
See, e.g., Salute
v.
Pitchess,
61
Cal. App. 3d 557, 560 (Cal. Ct. App. 1976) (holding
that sheriff's "refus[al] to consider" carry license applications "on the part
of
citizens generally"
was "an abuse of, and not an exercise of, discretion" warranting grant
of
mandamus); Kellogg
v.
City
of
Gary, 562 N.E.2d 685, 694 (Ind. 1990) (holding that, by refusing to distribute "blank
application forms for handgun permits, "the city denied the citizens access to the state's
procedural process"); Miller
v.
Collier, 878 P.2d 141, 145 (Colo. App. 1994) (allegation that
officers "refused to accept applications for concealed weapons permits
...
and breached their
statutory duty" was sufficient to state a claim for mandamus); Archer
v.
McGarry, No. Civ. A.
02-5593, 2002 WL 32182164, at
*1
(R.I. Super. Ct. Dec. 9, 2002) (granting mandamus for a
blanket refusal to consider an application).
17 Bruen, 597 U.S. at 70 (internal quotation marks omitted) (citing McDonald
v.
City
ofChicago, 561 U.S. 742, 780 (2010)).
18
Id at 13-14.
19 Id at 79 (Kavanaugh, J., concurring).
Letter to Attorney General David W. Sunday and Sheriff Sean P. Kilkenny Page 4
put toward abusive ends" that "deny ordinary citizens their right to public carry."20 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."21
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.
pJC'Pamela Bondi
Attorney General

Click to expand...

TEOTWAWKI inc. said:

Yes, a letter!

Those are so effective!

Click to expand...