A letter to AG Tom Corbett: Released, and any Responses

[ChamberedRound]

I know that PA AG Tom Corbett has been a friend to gun owners, and I have no intention of criticizing him. However, with all that's going on in Philadelphia, and the silence that seems to be coming from his office in Harrisburg on the issue of their passing laws in violation of the UFA, I've decided to make my opinion known, and ask him for his.

I have a 1st draft of a letter I intend to send to DA Corbett's office, and I submit this letter for the review and consideration of my friends here at the PAFOA; please feel free to post comments or PM me with edits, grammatical errors, etc.

I respectfully ask that no one reproduce or use this letter in any way until a final revision is decided on. First draft of the letter follows:

<Insert Date Here>

Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General
Attn: Thomas Corbett, Attorney General
16th Floor
Strawberry Square
Harrisburg, PA 17120

Attorney General Corbett:

I am writing to you, sir, with grave concern for the rule of law in our Commonwealth.

The criminal statutes commonly known as the Uniform Firearms Act (UFA), with which I am sure you are well versed, provide a consistent set of laws throughout the Commonwealth as it pertains to firearms and their sale, purchase, transport, and carry, as well as corresponding penalties for the violation of said laws. These statutes, which in my opinion are of great benefit, and regardless of my opinion are law in Pennsylvania, are being challenged with great indignation and public fanfare by Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter (henceforth referred to as the "Mayor") and the Philadelphia City Council (henceforth referred to as the "Council"). Through their passage of local laws which further restrict, over and above what is outlined in the UFA, the right of Philadelphia citizens as it pertains to firearms, the Mayor and the Council are willfully and without reservation disregarding the UFA, a law which was debated in the state Assembly and in which Philadelphia had fair representation.

Although I am not a lawyer, it is my understanding that the actions taken by the Mayor and the Council, because of the contradiction to §6120, "Limitation on the Regulation of Firearms and Ammunition", are by definition null and void. In addition, it is also my understanding that certain groups, such as the NRA, are challenging the laws in order to have them officially stricken, so that an innocent law-abiding citizen does not have to be charged with an offense and go through the expense and anguish of a trial and appeals process to achieve the same goal. However, I do not write to you to discuss what is already being done; rather, I write to inquire about what your position is on this issue, and what, if anything, you intend to do as the top legal official for our Commonwealth.

As previously stated, the Mayor of Philadelphia and the Council have passed laws which are in direct contradiction to §6120. By their own admission in the media, they knew their conduct was illegal, and yet passed the laws anyway. First, can't they be prosecuted as per §6119 for a violation of §6120? Second, since they proposed and passed a law they knew was illegal, can't they also be charged as per §903, "Criminal Conspiracy"? Lastly, aren't they all also in violation of §5301, "Official Oppression"? Their passage of these laws not only contradict §6120, but by §5301.2, also "denies or impedes another in the exercise or enjoyment of any right, privilege, power or immunity". If any regular citizen was to break a law, no matter how insignificant, it is the responsibility of the police to arrest that citizen, and the responsibility of the local DA to charge that person with a crime. Why then, does the same not apply to these citizens? Is it simply because they have been elected to public office? §5301 was made law specifically for this situation, to prevent elected officials from abusing the power granted to them by the People, and the People's legal representatives are responsible for charging said officials with such a crime. While I commend Philadelphia DA Lynne Abraham for not upholding the laws until the NRA's argument is heard, she has neglected to bring charges against these officials; will you, sir, also ignore the illegal actions of the Mayor and the Council, as well as ignore the law? I argue that you cannot; the preservation of our rights, and the obligation to protect the electors from the elected when the abuse is painfully obvious, demands it.

Have we become so complacent a society that those who dare expect our elected officials to act within the law, question their behavior, and ask that laws on the books be enforced, are dismissed as troublemakers? I understand this is a sensitive issue, and that sensitive issues are tough to address in an election year. However, I believe that if you simply uphold the rule of law, without editorial or opinion, without prejudice or malice, you would find that many citizens of the Commonwealth would greatly respect you, and support you, for it. I know I would.

I thank you for your time, and hope you will give this matter the serious consideration it is due.

Kind Regards,
<>

[LittleRedToyota]

i don't think it would actually hurt to send this letter, and it would be interesting to hear his response, but...

i don't think the official oppression charge can be made unless/until they actually enforce the illegal law.

i think a better approach might be to ask that they be charged with a a misdemeanor of the 1st degree for violating section 6120 as per section 6119 of the UFA.

§ 6119. Violation penalty.

Except as otherwise specifically provided, an offense under this subchapter constitutes a misdemeanor of the first degree.

i am not a lawyer, though.

[billamj]

Personally I like it as is. If the AG wants to then specify that anything that he would do would be under 6119 that is completely different. I think that both possibilities have merit and deserve thought at that level.

[knight0334]

You have my permission to sign my name on that with a Post Script of:

"If you need someone to stomp a mudhole in Nutter's @ss while making an attempt to arrest him on Official Oppression charges - count me in."

[ChamberedRound]

Originally Posted by LittleRedToyota

i don't think the official oppression charge can be made unless/until they actually enforce the illegal law.

A fair point. I'm pretty sure the charge can be made, I just don't know if it would result in a conviction given that the Philly DA did actually state that her office wouldn't enforce the law until a decision is made in the NRA's case. Although, I believe some of the statements Nutter and the Council made to the media, along with the passage of the laws themselves knowing it was illegal, would be enough to fulfill the burden of proof.

Originally Posted by LittleRedToyota

i think a better approach might be to ask that they be charged with a a misdemeanor of the 1st degree for violating section 6120 as per section 6119 of the UFA.

I'll look into adding this as well, although I'll likely keep the existing text. He's the lawyer, I'll let him tell me whether or not he can do it, and why.

[knight0334]

Originally Posted by ChamberedRound

A fair point. I'm pretty sure the charge can be made, I just don't know if it would result in a conviction given that the Philly DA did actually state that her office wouldn't enforce the law until a decision is made in the NRA's case. Although, I believe some of the statements Nutter and the Council made to the media, along with the passage of the laws themselves knowing it was illegal, would be enough to fulfill the burden of proof.



I'll look into adding this as well, although I'll likely keep the existing text. He's the lawyer, I'll let him tell me whether or not he can do it, and why.

They may not be guilty of OP charge... but they did willfully conspire to commit a crime.

They know that making a gun law was against state law, and would have been guilty of OP if they enforced it. Their act of creating a illegal law was premeditated - thus supporting conspiracy.

§ 903. Criminal conspiracy.

(a) Definition of conspiracy.--A person is guilty of conspiracy with another person or persons to commit a crime if with the intent of promoting or facilitating its commission he:

1. agrees with such other person or persons that they or one or more of them will engage in conduct which constitutes such crime or an attempt or solicitation to commit such crime; or
2. agrees to aid such other person or persons in the planning or commission of such crime or of an attempt or solicitation to commit such crime.

(b) Scope of conspiratorial relationship.--If a person guilty of conspiracy, as defined by subsection (a) of this section, knows that a person with whom he conspires to commit a crime has conspired with another person or persons to commit the same crime, he is guilty of conspiring with such other person or persons, to commit such crime whether or not he knows their identity.

(c) Conspiracy with multiple criminal objectives.--If a person conspires to commit a number of crimes, he is guilty of only one conspiracy so long as such multiple crimes are the object of the same agreement or continuous conspiratorial relationship.

(d) Joinder and venue in conspiracy prosecutions.--

1. Subject to the provisions of paragraph (2) of this subsection, two or more persons charged with criminal conspiracy may be prosecuted jointly if:
1. they are charged with conspiring with one another; or
2. the conspiracies alleged, whether they have the same or different parties, are so related that they constitute different aspects of a scheme of organized criminal conduct.
2. In any joint prosecution under paragraph (1) of this subsection:
1. no defendant shall be charged with a conspiracy in any county other than one in which he entered into such conspiracy or in which an overt act pursuant to such conspiracy was done by him or by a person with whom he conspired;
2. neither the liability of any defendant nor the admissibility against him of evidence of acts or declarations of another shall be enlarged by such joinder; and
3. the court shall order a severance or take a special verdict as to any defendant who so requests, if it deems it necessary or appropriate to promote the fair determination of his guilt or innocence, and shall take any other proper measures to protect the fairness of the trial.

(e) Overt act.--No person may be convicted of conspiracy to commit a crime unless an overt act in pursuance of such conspiracy is alleged and proved to have been done by him or by a person with whom he conspired.

(f) Renunciation.--It is a defense that the actor, after conspiring to commit a crime, thwarted the success of the conspiracy, under circumstances manifesting a complete and voluntary renunciation of his criminal intent.

(g) Duration of conspiracy.--For purposes of 42 Pa.C.S.§ 5552(d) (relating to commission of offense):

1. conspiracy is a continuing course of conduct which terminates when the crime or crimes which are its object are committed or the agreement that they be committed is abandoned by the defendant and by those with whom he conspired;
2. such abandonment is presumed if neither the defendant nor anyone with whom he conspired does any overt act in pursuance of the conspiracy during the applicable period of limitation; and
3. if an individual abandons the agreement, the conspiracy is terminated as to him only if and when he advises those with whom he conspired of his abandonment or he informs the law enforcement authorities of the existence of the conspiracy and of his participation therein.

[unloved]

Looks good as far as spelling and grammar.
When you're ready with the final draft will you make it available to everyone here? I think the AG might sit up and take notice if he receives several hundred copies from all over the state.

[larrymeyer]

I think all of us should be willing to stand up. So you have my permission to sign my name on that as well. Are if you'd prefer I'll also send a letter but I think more names on this the better

[LittleRedToyota]

Originally Posted by knight0334

They may not be guilty of OP charge... but they did willfully conspire to commit a crime.

They know that making a gun law was against state law, and would have been guilty of OP if they enforced it. Their act of creating a illegal law was premeditated - thus supporting conspiracy.

i like the conspiracy angle.

maybe they should have to forfeit city hall under RICO?

[andrewjs18]

Wow, looks nice and all the grammar and spelling looked just fine...You can also sign my name =P