Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

Welcome to Glock Forum at

Why should YOU join our forums?

  • Reason #1
  • Reason #2
  • Reason #3

Site Description

Philly man with Fla. gun permit sentenced to jail for deadly shooting

Discussion in 'Carry Issues' started by TBO, Aug 3, 2012.

  1. TBO

    TBO Why so serious? CLM

  2. erkman

    erkman Sleepy Member

    May 1, 2012
    NE Alabama
    Shot him 13 times. I see why he got sentenced.

  3. HerrGlock

    HerrGlock Scouts Out CLM

    Dec 28, 2000
    The system worked as it was supposed to.
  4. The number 13 was definitely an unlucky number for both the shooter and the shotee.
  5. How many times are we allowed to shoot a car thief?
  6. Glock_9mm


    Jul 10, 2012
    Well, it appears that zero would be the correct answer in this case. As wrong as it may seem, the shooter appears to be the aggressor here, not the car thief. It does not help that he had been accused of attempted murder a few years back...kind of shows a pattern IMO.
  7. Police are making a big deal about his pa permit being revoked and him still being able to get a fl permit.

    But his pa permit was revoked due to an arrest for a crime he was later found not guilty of. So he should have been eligible to get his pa permit back.

    Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine
  8. TBO

    TBO Why so serious? CLM

    What does PA say a permit can be revoked for?
    I'll bet it's not just for "criminal convictions".
  9. I highly doubt that after his trial, PA would have automatically moved to restore his CCW permit. So the the next question is, after his trial, did he make any effort to get his PA license back? (IDK)
    Last edited: Aug 3, 2012
  10. The Machinist

    The Machinist No Compromise

    Sep 20, 2009
    The Left Coast
    Another travesty of justice.
  11. TBO

    TBO Why so serious? CLM

    (i) Revocation.--A license to carry firearms may be revoked by the issuing authority for good cause. A license to carry firearms shall be revoked by the issuing authority for any reason stated in subsection (e)(1) which occurs during the term of the permit. Notice of revocation shall be in writing and shall state the specific reason for revocation. Notice shall be sent by certified mail to the individual whose license is revoked, and, at that time, notice shall also be provided to the Pennsylvania State Police by electronic means, including e-mail or facsimile transmission, that the license is no longer valid. An individual whose license is revoked shall surrender the license to the issuing authority within five days of receipt of the notice. An individual whose license is revoked may appeal to the court of common pleas for the judicial district in which the individual resides. An individual who violates this section commits a summary offense.

    (e) Issuance of license.--
    (1) A license to carry a firearm shall be for the purpose of carrying a firearm concealed on or about one's person or in a vehicle and shall be issued if, after an investigation not to exceed 45 days, it appears that the applicant is an individual concerning whom no good cause exists to deny the license. A license shall not be issued to any of the following:
    (i) An individual whose character and reputation is such that the individual would be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety.
    (ii) An individual who has been convicted of an offense under the act of April 14, 1972 (P.L. 233, No. 64), known as The Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act. [FN1]
    (iii) An individual convicted of a crime enumerated in section 6105.
    (iv) An individual who, within the past ten years, has been adjudicated delinquent for a crime enumerated in section 6105 or for an offense under The Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act.
    (v) An individual who is not of sound mind or who has ever been committed to a mental institution.
    (vi) An individual who is addicted to or is an unlawful user of marijuana or a stimulant, depressant or narcotic drug.
    (vii) An individual who is a habitual drunkard.
    (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).
    (ix) A resident of another state who does not possess a current license or permit or similar document to carry a firearm issued by that state if a license is provided for by the laws of that state, as published annually in the Federal Register by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms of the Department of the Treasury under 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(19) (relating to definitions).
    (x) An alien who is illegally in the United States.
    (xi) An individual who has been discharged from the armed forces of the United States under dishonorable conditions.
    (xii) An individual who is a fugitive from justice. This subparagraph does not apply to an individual whose fugitive status is based upon nonmoving or moving summary offense under Title 75 (relating to vehicles).
    (xiii) An individual who is otherwise prohibited from possessing, using, manufacturing, controlling, purchasing, selling or transferring a firearm as provided by section 6105.
    (xiv) An individual who is prohibited from possessing or acquiring a firearm under the statutes of the United States.
  12. His license was revoked because of the pending charges. Not uncommon at all. Pretty standard in most states, you get charged with a felony and your CHP/CCW gets taken away.

    But once he was cleared what reason would PA have to deny him a permit?

    According to the article:

    None of the reasons you put in bold apply to Mr. Hill. As far as I can tell from the information in the article after his charges were dropped in 2005 he should have been eligible to reapply for his concealed carry permit. We don't know if he tried to or not.
    Last edited: Aug 3, 2012
  13. TBO

    TBO Why so serious? CLM

    1. Did he re-apply?
    2. Can you not see there are disqualifiers other than a criminal conviction?
    Last edited: Aug 3, 2012
  14. bigtimelarry


    Apr 22, 2012
    If I was the Judge I would have asked the Prosecuter "Why was he breaking into this man's car and if he wouldn't have tried to steal this man's car this never would have happened right ? " Case Dismissed..
  15. If Frank Rizzo were still Mayor or Police commissioner it would have been ruled "apparent suicide". Frank was Philly's "Sheriff Joe " back in the day.
  16. JW1178


    Jul 17, 2009
    It's one reason why crime is high up north. The criminals will boldly commit their crimes in broad daylight and if you catch them, they fight back because the law and society protects them.

    So he heard his alarm, came out and a band of punk thugs were breaking into his car. When they were caught, they obviously decided they were the ones with the force so they decided to resist him, and one got gunned down. Perhaps he shouldn't have opened fire on them as his life wasn't in danger but this is what gets me. We are going to take a functioning member of society out of society and now going to pay probably over a million dollars plus to imprison him for taking out a non-functioning problem in our society.
  17. TBO

    TBO Why so serious? CLM

    How do you (we) know he's a "functioning member of society"?
    What are the qualifications for that title?


  18. HerrGlock

    HerrGlock Scouts Out CLM

    Dec 28, 2000
    There are several right ways to do this.

    What this guy did was none of them, his was the wrong way. He'll pay for it and provide and example of what not to do.
  19. JW1178


    Jul 17, 2009
    Well, I'm not sure, I am figuring he is more likely than the thug breaking into his car.

    Anyways, I agree, he did not act appropriately. But 30 years? Really? I bet if the car theif had shot him he wouldn't have gotten that much. I can't be sure about that either, but 30 years for taking out a punk car theif? Maybe he should get something but it's just a car thief. However that's my way of thinking.
  20. Bruce M

    Bruce M

    Jan 3, 2010
    S FL
    Maybe it's just me, but I have to guess at least a little part of the sentence might have to do with this not being his first murder charge. Some people strongly suggest that they are felonious regardless of their actual conviction record. Rumor has it that some who practice in the criminal justice system can readily identify many of those people. In addition to police officers I have to guess some judges might have honed that skill.

    And that sort of fits in with my pet theory based on my very limited little world that suggests that in more than a few shootings/homicide scenes it is difficult to determine who is the subject and who is the victim (or relatively easy to determine the situation is criminal versus criminal.)
    Last edited: Aug 4, 2012