By Jonathan S. Goldstein and George A. Mocsary, The Conversation via Reuters Connect<\/p>\n
Paul Birdsong leads the\u00a0Black Lion Party for International Solidarity, an armed,\u00a0Black Panthers-inspired mutual aid group\u00a0in Philadelphia.<\/p>\n
Until February, the 39-year-old carried a firearm during the group\u2019s neighborhood patrols to increase neighborhood safety. Then the police revoked his carry license. Four other Black Lion members lost their licenses the same week.<\/p>\n
The city\u2019s revocation letters, by published accounts, explained little. They cited \u201cgood cause\u201d and Birdsong\u2019s \u201ccharacter and reputation.\u201d<\/p>\n
They also pointed to a\u00a0tense January 2026 encounter\u00a0between a group of Black Lion members carrying rifles and a group of officers. The\u00a0argument at a snowy intersection at 23rd and Diamond streets in North Philadelphia ended in hard words \u2014 but no arrests, citations or violence.<\/p>\n
On June 9, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice opened a civil rights investigation into the Philadelphia Police Department\u2019s licensing practices.<\/p>\n
Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon\u00a0wrote to Philadelphia Mayor Cherelle Parker<\/a>\u00a0that her office would examine whether the Philadelphia police can use a \u201cvague \u2018good cause\u2019 standard<\/a>\u201d to cancel permits.<\/p>\n Philadelphia has long been the\u00a0outlier in Pennsylvania<\/a>\u00a0when it comes to public carry. Public carry refers to legally carrying a firearm in public places, whether openly, where the gun is visible, or concealed, where the gun is hidden from public view. Pennsylvania adults may lawfully carry firearms openly without a license everywhere but in the city of Philadelphia<\/a>. Statewide, a license is always required to carry concealed.<\/p>\n In Philadelphia, however, gun owners need a license to carry openly too. This exception is rooted in the Pennsylvania legislature\u2019s public policy choices made decades ago.<\/p>\n But this\u00a0Philadelphia-only firearms rule<\/a>\u00a0is under constitutional pressure. In 2025, in\u00a0Commonwealth v. Sumpter<\/a>, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania held it unconstitutional as applied. The state Supreme Court is now weighing the question.<\/p>\n Yet, for now, the\u00a0statute remains<\/a>\u00a0on the books and still lets a license be revoked for \u201cgood cause\u201d or because an official deems the holder\u2019s \u201ccharacter and reputation\u201d dangerous.<\/p>\n The Department of Justice says that\u2019s a problem.<\/p>\n Supreme Court ruling on gun licenses<\/strong><\/p>\n To understand the Department of Justice\u2019s case against Philadelphia, it\u2019s helpful to look back to 2022, when the U.S. Supreme Court decided\u00a0New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen<\/a>.<\/p>\n In its 6-3 ruling along what are considered typical conservative-liberal lines, the court struck down a New York law that issued carry licenses only to applicants who showed special \u201cproper cause.\u201d<\/p>\n The court drew a clear line. A government may screen permit holders with \u201cnarrow, objective, and definite standards\u201d \u2014 a background check, a safety course, fixed criteria an honest applicant can know and meet. What the government may not do, the justices ruled, is hinge the right on \u201cthe appraisal of facts, the exercise of judgment, and the formation of an opinion.\u201d<\/p>\n The majority added in its ruling, \u201cWe know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need.\u201d<\/p>\n Justice Brett Kavanaugh condemned \u201copen-ended\u201d and \u201cunchanneled discretion for licensing officials.\u201d<\/p>\n The dissent saw it differently. Justice Stephen Breyer, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, argued the court should have considered \u201cthe State\u2019s compelling interest in preventing gun violence and protecting the safety of its citizens.\u201d In that view, dense urban risks justify more room for local judgment.<\/p>\n But Bruen rejected that approach and ruled that the government\u2019s interest in preventing violence cannot justify vague or open-ended discretion over who may exercise a constitutional right.<\/p>\n The problem with \u2018good cause\u2019 standards<\/strong><\/p>\n If someone in Philadelphia wants to carry a gun, they must obtain a license to carry through the Philadelphia Police Department\u2019s gun permit unit. But without an objective yardstick, two police officers can review the same file and make opposite decisions about the granting of a license.<\/p>\n With a subjective standard, an applicant who is quiet, polished and familiar to the licensing office may pass this test, while another who is equally law-abiding but perhaps less polished or more socially awkward may fail.<\/p>\n One officer might treat a passionate social media post as proof of instability; another might treat it as protected speech.<\/p>\n A rule-bound system asks whether the applicant is legally disqualified. A discretionary one asks whether the official is comfortable with the applicant.<\/p>\n That is how a constitutional right impermissibly becomes a discretionary privilege.<\/p>\n Suppose you could vote only if a clerk judged an applicant\u2019s \u201ccharacter and reputation\u201d sound. Suppose a parade permit could be revoked whenever the\u00a0marchers\u2019 conduct \u201ctroubled\u201d police. That would be intolerable in any other setting \u2013 not because every voter or marcher is admirable, but because constitutional rights are not based on a government employee\u2019s benevolent opinion.<\/p>\n Whether someone supports the Black Lions or finds their armed patrols unsettling is beside the point. When the test for stripping a right is \u201cgood cause\u201d \u2014 words that mean whatever the person holding the stamp wants them to mean \u2014 the test itself violates the Constitution.<\/p>\n Other cities, including New York City and Boston, also administer gun-licensing systems with subjective moral-character or suitability standards. However, Pennsylvania\u2019s \u201ccharacter and reputation\u201d language is among the most open-ended, particularly as it relates to the revocation of licenses.<\/p>\n Whatever happened at 23rd and Diamond streets, the dispute is relevant to every gun permit holder in the city: May one of the\u00a0largest police forces<\/a>\u00a0in the country switch a constitutional right on and off according to its own read of a person\u2019s perceived suitability or reputation?<\/p>\n Jonathan S. Goldstein <\/a>is an Adjunct Lecturer of Law at the University of Pennsylvania.\u00a0George A. Mocsary <\/a>is a Professor of Law at the University of Wyoming; Institute for Humane Studies.<\/p>\n