Caba v. Weaknecht, 64 A.3d 39

Caba’s Berks County concealed carry license was revoked by the Sheriff for a finding that his “character and reputation” indicated danger to public safety under 18 Pa.C.S. §6109(e)(1)(i); he appealed the revocation.
The Sheriff initially issued the license on August 20, 2009; the revocation notice followed on August 30, 2011, prompting Caba’s administrative appeal to the trial court.
An evidentiary hearing occurred on February 2, 2012, with the Sheriff bearing the burden of proof; key exhibits included records from Hamburg and Reading incidents and a MDJ conviction; witness testimony included Sheriff staff, Andrew Potts, and Caba’s character witness Rifas.
Disputed Hamburg incident involved Potts’s testimony alleging Caba retrieved a handgun and chased individuals, with Potts as a rebuttal witness offering conflicting accounts to Caba’s version.
The trial court denied the appeal; Caba challenged the statute and conducted discovery; the court ultimately affirmed the trial court’s denial of relief.
The district court later references and the Pennsylvania appellate court’s analysis apply substantial due process and constitutional doctrines to determine the outcome, which this court sustains.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Constitutionality of §6109(e)(1)(i)	Caba argues the standard is vague and violates the Second Amendment and Pa. Constitution.	Weaknecht contends the statute is presumptively valid and consistent with Heller/McDonald.	Constitutional; statute presumptively valid under intermediate scrutiny.
Due process – property/liberty interest and notice	Caba asserts lack of a protective interest and inadequate notice before revocation.	Sheriff contends discretionary revocation with due process via de novo hearing.	Caba had a liberty interest; due process satisfied; notice deemed deficient but not prejudicial; de novo hearing cured process.
Equal protection challenge to §6109(e)(1)(i)	Argues the standard is vague, leading to unequal application.	Statute applies to all similarly situated individuals.	No valid equal protection violation.
Cross-examination and evidentiary limits at hearing	Claims the trial court improperly limited cross-examination of Mr. Potts.	Court maintained limits consistent with role of license-issuing authority.	No reversible error; de novo weighing upheld.
Discovery/notice deficiencies in revocation notice	Revocation letter failed to specify the factual basis for revocation.	Notice allowed appeal and underlying facts were explored at de novo hearing.	Notice defect did not require relief given lack of demonstrated prejudice.

Hopkins v. Tate, 255 Pa. 56 (Pa. 1916) (distinguishes character vs. reputation; reputation can change over time)
Morley v. City of Phila. Licenses & Inspections Unit, 844 A.2d 637 (Pa.Cmwlth.2004) (license revocation and due process considerations)
Harris v. Sheriff of Del. Cnty., 675 A.2d 400 (Pa.Cmwlth.1996) (testimony on reputation allowed; notices and procedures discussed)
Tsokas v. Board of Licenses & Inspections Review, 777 A.2d 1202 (Pa.Cmwlth.2001) (recognizes discretion but supports review of factual findings)
Gardner v. Jenkins, 541 A.2d 406 (Pa.Cmwlth.1988) (discretion of licensing authority pre-1998 amendments (historical context))
Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (U.S. 1972) (property interest requires entitlement not mere abstract need)
Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693 (U.S. 1976) (damages and due process tied to government action affecting rights)
Heller v. District of Columbia, 554 U.S. 570 (U.S. 2008) (concealed carry regulation recognized as presumptively lawful)
McDonald v. City of Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 3020 (S. Ct. 2010) (Second Amendment anticipated incorporation to states; limits on rights)
Woollard v. Sheridan, 863 F.Supp.2d 462 (D. Md. 2012) (district court on good/reason for permit; distinguished from state scheme)
Marich v. Pa. Game Comm’n, 542 Pa. 226 (Pa. 1995) (due process in licensing; hunting license not a guaranteed right)