➡ Sheriff Kilkenny and AG Sunday should face legal consequences for their actions. It’s important to support groups that defend our rights in court and hold government employees accountable. Don’t stay silent when officials violate the constitution; instead, fight back. Stay informed, stay free, and continue to fight for your rights.

Have you ever seen a government agency so drunk on power it ignores the Constitution? Ignores the people and then doubles down when caught? Yeah, I bet we all have. Well buckle up because that’s exactly what’s happening right now in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania. And we’re gonna talk about it. Hey everybody, welcome back to the channel. If you’re new here, hit that subscribe button and turn on the bell notification so you never miss a breakdown that the mainstream media refuses to cover regarding our second amendment. Today we’re exposing a fiery directive from U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi directed at Pennsylvania officials, specifically Montgomery County Sheriff Sean Kilkenny, the Pennsylvania Attorney General David Sunday, and even the Philadelphia Police Department.

Well, what did they do? It’s kind of what they really didn’t do, but they’ve tried to criminalize constitutionally protected conduct and Bondi isn’t having it. And before we dive in, huge thank you to today’s sponsors Sonoran Desert Institute. Whether you’re looking to become a certified gunsmith or take your firearms education to the next level, SDI is the real deal. Check out the link in the description below to learn more. It’s SDI.edu slash GNG. All right, let’s lay the groundwork here. Pam Bondi, the Attorney General of the United States, sent a detailed and scathing letter to Pennsylvania officials a couple days ago on May 30th.

She called out both Sheriff Kilkenny and many sheriff departments across the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, accusing them of intentionally refusing to issue out-of-state residents a firearms permit. In violation of the Second Amendment, Pennsylvania state law, the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the U.S. Constitution, and of course the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association versus Bruin. Bondi didn’t mince her words. In fact, here’s her letter. 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, 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, nor may unlicensed citizens generally carry a firearm concealed or not on public property in Philadelphia or in certain other areas.

Pennsylvania’s licensing scheme also has serious consequences under federal law, which prohibits carrying a firearm within 1,000 feet of a school without a license issued by the state in which the school zone is located. Problematically, however, Pennsylvania sheriffs are not properly issuing carry licenses on a non-discretionary, non-discriminatory 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. 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 non-resident carry applications.

As the website for the Pennsylvania State Police accurately recounts, many county sheriffs will not issue non-resident license to carry permits. That categorical refusal includes your office, Sheriff Kilkenny, as well as the Philadelphia Police Department and many others. These offices direct out-of-state residents to try another county in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. In some geographic areas, such as the metropolitan Philadelphia region, very few sheriffs, just one the Department of Justice has identified in Delaware County, actually fulfill their legal obligation to process carry license applications by non-residents. This is a clear violation of Pennsylvania law, which expressly contemplates that both resident and non-resident firearm licenses will be processed on a shell issue basis.

Pennsylvania law provides that an 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. 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. But if the applicant is not a resident of the Commonwealth, the general rule applies that the applicant need only apply to a sheriff.

Once a qualified applicant applies, Pennsylvania law provides that a 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. Confirming that non-residents are among the individuals 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, or 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.

In some, Pennsylvania law requires all of the Commonwealth sheriffs to accept non-resident 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 officials to carry out their ministerial duty to entertain a license application.

Non-residents should not have to do that in Pennsylvania. But this is not merely a state law problem. The Supreme Court has been clear that the 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. A permit requirement for public carry does not, without more, violate the Second Amendment. However, in Bruin, 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.

The latter, a may issue regime, is constitutionally problematic because it grants open-ended discretion to licensing officials, and the exercise of the Second Amendment rights cannot be conditioned on the exercise of such discretion. What is happening in Pennsylvania is even worse. Although citizens retain their right to arm 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 Bruin. The Supreme Court has warned that any permitting scheme, even a shall issue regime, can be put toward abusive ends that deny ordinary citizens their right to public carry.

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 the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states. 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. Sincerely AG Pam Bondi. So this wasn’t just a slap on the wrist. This is a warning shot across the bow of the anti-gun clowns abusing their badge in Pennsylvania.

Now as Second Amendment supporters, we’ve been warning about this for years. Government actors who cherry pick which laws to follow based on their policies, and they’re not serving the people guys and gals. They’re trying to rule over them. This situation proves what we’ve said all along. The Second Amendment is constantly under attack, not just by new laws, but by misuse of existing ones. Rogue sheriffs and chiefs of police and politically motivated prosecutors are more dangerous than any law on paper because they can twist even lawful behavior into a crime. And let’s not forget, if this can happen to someone with no issues and who deserves the out-of-state carry permit in which they applied for today, what’s stopping them from coming for you tomorrow even if you’re fully compliant with the law? Now I will say for those who are typing away who might be new to the channel, I think that permits are a violation of the Second Amendment as well.

But here we are. This is why it’s so important for us to first know our rights. If you are traveling between states with a firearm, know the federal laws that guide that. You can stop in some states if it’s not a planned stop even if they are anti-gun like New York. But always check reciprocity and also document it. Carry a printed copy of any reciprocity agreement or a relevant statute. It takes you two seconds to find it. You can Google it and then hit print and then just keep a copy. Second, hold bad actors accountable.

Sheriff Kilkenny and AG Sunday should face consequences, not just public pressure, but legal action. Support groups like Second Amendment Foundation, Gun Owners of America, Firehouse Policy Coalition, or any other group because I’m not going to list every single one of them, but any other group that is actively defending our rights in court and seeks to hold individual government employees accountable. And third, never stay silent. When rogue officials violate the constitution, they’re betting that you’ll be too afraid, too intimidated, or just too tired to fight back. Prove them wrong. If you found this video helpful, do me a favor.

Hit the like button. Drop a comment down below. Do you think Sheriff Kilkenny should be removed from office? And then subscribe to the channel for more Second Amendment news that you will not find on television. Thanks again to the Snowing Desert Institute for sponsoring today’s video. If you ever wanted to turn your love of firearms into a career, check out SDI’s accredited online programs. Links in the description. Guys and gals, stay armed. Stay informed. Stay free. And never stop fighting for your rights. Take care. [tr:trw].

See more of Guns & Gadgets 2nd Amendment News on their Public Channel and the MPN Guns & Gadgets 2nd Amendment News channel.