Your WISH List of changes to UFA For Gun Owners benefit and protection

[Statkowski]

Right now the PSP keeps firearms sales data forever. The law says the records are supposed to be destroyed. They're not. Who enforces the law with regards to the PSP ignoring the law?

[fingers80002]

Originally Posted by LittleRedToyota

what do you mean by "castle doctrine"?

we already do not have a duty to retreat inside our homes. so we really already have "castle doctrine".

are you refering to immunity from civil lawsuits as well if you defend yourself in your home? or are you refering to a "stand your ground" law? (frankly, the "with complete safety" part of the current duty to retreat puts us fairly close to stand your ground as well.)

Similar to the "TX " and "FL" castle doctrine.

[Bmaninmifco]

Actually what would be good to see is a set guideline other that permanent for losing your rights.

Say your arrested as a 18 year old kid for criminal tresspass. I think thats like 5 years in jail max.
5 years from the conviction date that clock starts with another 5 years after that 10 year period if you kept your nose clean their should be a viable and cost effective process to restore you firearm rights.

[ccphilly1984]

Originally Posted by Bmaninmifco

Actually what would be good to see is a set guideline other that permanent for losing your rights.

Say your arrested as a 18 year old kid for criminal tresspass. I think thats like 5 years in jail max.
5 years from the conviction date that clock starts with another 5 years after that 10 year period if you kept your nose clean their should be a viable and cost effective process to restore you firearm rights.

+1. texas has i think a 7 year expunge period. i mean there are some people who don't go back to crime and they get a job after they make their one stupid mistake when they are 18, 19 ect.

[imperialism2024]

In all seriousness, though, the most obvious black mark on Pennsylvania's gun rights record is vehicular transport of pistols. As it stands now, one has roughly the same freedom of movement with a gun and no LTCF as one in New York or New Jersey. We need to, at the minimum, remove the prohibition on unloaded transport without a license... at best, unrestricted (Vermont-style, if you will) carry in cars.

[dogngun]

1. Eliminate the references now required for the LCTF. All the info needed is on the record - the interviews are just opinions, and by another private citizen - they really have no meaning, but could disqualify you if they are negative.
2. It's a statewide license - have statewide regs - consistant as the proceedures and fees. Also need to eliminate the sheriff's ability to revoke at will.
3. Remove the state's listing of firearms purchases and handgun ownership totally and immediately, and make it a crime to keep such records.

I know all of this has been proposed before, just want to firm it up a little.
Thanks for doing this.

mark

[nlcrsn]

I still say Remove all criteria, laws, regulations. Except "VIOLENT CRIMINALS" and violent crimes. Not a kid in a fist fight... Murder, Stabbings etc I feel should be held for life.

[Bruce]

Originally Posted by nlcrsn

All laws removed! any form of gun control, licensing, restrictions. Except violent crimes and criminals!

I apologize if this seems a bit ranty, but... I promise that I will get to the 'changes' I would like to see in the UFA in this post.

I know that many (probably most) would only half-heartedly agree with nlcrsn's post here; myself included, but perhaps not for the same reason.

I take issue with the "Except violent crimes and criminals!" part. Everything else I agree with 1000%!

Violent crimes are already illegal. There is no need to attach "gun laws" to them. It shouldn't matter if you commit a crime with a rope, a lead pipe, a can of gasoline and a lighter, a firearm, a knife, et cetera - the law should not care which/what (if any) weapons were used in the commission of a crime. Singling out firearms makes "crimes with guns" somehow "more criminal" - which is absurd.

Lawfully convicted criminals (particularly violent ones) should be removed from society. Perhaps we can create a facility to house those convicted of violent crimes? In such a facility, we should (through Due Process) disarm those so interned. I propose we call such places "prisons" and "jails". Oh wait! We already have those!

If a citizen is so obviously dangerous that they pose a threat so great that they can no longer be trusted with their Second Amendment right, then, in my ever-so-humble-opinion - THEY SHOULD REMAIN IN PRISON!! I really don't want these people released to live among my friends and family! A lawfully convicted violent criminal who is deemed so dangerous that their Right to Keep and Bear Arms must be disabled should not be free to buy a knife; or even have access to a sharp stick! What the heck are these people doing on the streets??!!

If a citizen "paid their debt to society", then either we should accept that this "debt" has been "paid in full" (thereby re-enabling all the citizen's rights) or we should reconsider our entire penal system - perhaps lengthening the duration of incarceration, or, perhaps better, making those incarcerated have such an unpleasant experience that they actually are too fearful to ever commit a crime again! I lean towards the latter, myself.

This being said, I realize that the sudden removal of all firearms related laws is simply too much to hope for. In this light, I would settle for the removal of the language in the UFA that refers to vehicles.

I didn't say I want to see the UFA changed to include more language ("open carry" blah blah et cetera, et cetera), just the removal of all the language that makes carry (any type of 'carry') in a vehicle illegal. Wishful thinking, I'm sure. It stems from my all too obvious detestation of all 'gun laws'.

So, how about this? Simply change the wording so that an LTCF is required ONLY for CONCEALED carry IN PUBLIC - at one's pob or 'on private property' (with owner's permission) should not require an LTCF. Thereby completely 'legalizing' open carry (in vehicles, 'everywhere') and limiting the necessity for an LTCF to allow for 'public' concealment only.

Also, all of the language regarding the requirement for an LTCF to carry a firearm (in any manner) during a declared 'emergency' should be removed altogether from the UFA. Call that: The Katrina Amendment.

Lastly, there should be expressed (and harsh) penalties for those issuing licenses (Sheriffs) who do not follow a (simplified) standardized application process and use a standardized license form. Plus, the license renewal process should be considerably streamlined (not a full 're-application') and, of course, standardized across the Commonwealth as well.
.

[ScooterKrunch]

Licensing is a problem and I have actually thought about it before. Here's my idea. Why not run licensing congruent to the PA DL? Possibly even through the same facilities? Licenses are issued after all requirements are met; pay the required fees, take a small test similar to the hunters safety course, pass the background check, get a photo-card, get your license issued. Renewals would be the same as the DL; pay the fees, they do another background check, get a photo-card, get your pic taken. Licenses could be numbered with your PA DL number plus some (12-345-678-XX). With this they could then streamline the PICS check. Say you go to buy a gun, they take your LTCF and swipe it similar to a credit card. The call is made with all of your relevant info, all automated. Once completed the return comes back approved or denied. This frees the phones and the employee while the check is performed. Also make the checks valid for period of time; 1 week, 1 month etc. Say you make a purchase and 2 weeks later you find a deal you can't pass up. When your LTCF is swiped it brings up the last PICS check and the research time is now saved. Someone brought up allowing FTF handgun sales with a valid LTCF. I feel a LTCF shouldn't be used as the sole factor of a sale. Sometimes good people do go bad. Maybe using the existing system for individual use could be set up. There are more details I have but I've rambled on enough. I'm sure there are disadvantages to all of this but I think they would be tolerable for the convenience and consistency in licensing gained.

[Bruce]

Originally Posted by ScooterKrunch

Here's my idea. Why not run licensing congruent to the PA DL?

The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Article 1, Section 21, and the Constitution of the United States of America, Amendment 2, both establish and protect the individual citizen's Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

We have an established and protected right to bear arms.

Driving a motor vehicle is a privilege.

Privileges are granted to citizens by the government; the government gives you the 'privilege' to drive. Rights are given to us by our Creator and are protected from the government by Constitutional Law.

It is just a bad idea to allow our Right to Keep and Bear Arms to be equated with any 'privilege'.

Originally Posted by ScooterKrunch

Licenses are issued after all requirements are met; pay the required fees, take a small test similar to the hunters safety course, pass the background check, get a photo-card, get your license issued.

Apart from being a citizen, what other 'requirements' are you suggesting?

Why should I be subjected to a test in order to lawfully exercise a Constitutionally protected right? (Hunting is a 'privilege', by the way.)

A License to Carry Firearms in Pennsylvania (basically) only allows me the 'privilege' (just a hair past my Right, which already exists) to carry a 'firearm' (as defined by the UFA) in a 'concealed' manner. Are you suggesting some sort of 'test' is needed to establish that I can 'conceal' a firearm on my person?

Originally Posted by ScooterKrunch

When your LTCF is swiped it brings up the last PICS check and the research time is now saved. Someone brought up allowing FTF handgun sales with a valid LTCF. I feel a LTCF shouldn't be used as the sole factor of a sale.

There was a time in Germany when a certain 'group' of people were 'granted' a special ID by the government. They were concerned that these people might loose a document or placard, so the oh-so thoughtful government just tattooed the number right onto their forearm. After all, they didn't want to lose track of these people.

Some of those people were my family's ancestors.

I'm sorry, but I will NEVER see any government ID as a 'good' idea; I have an entirely different perspective altogether on that topic.

I am a law-abiding, peaceful, natural-born American citizen. There is no reason whatsoever for the government to 'keep close tabs' on what firearms I purchase or where or when I purchase them.

I prefer where it is the government's job to (if they feel they must) figure out if I am a criminal. I DO NOT see any reason why I should be made to go out and constantly PROVE I am innocent first (perhaps unnecessarily). Such nonsense is un-American, if you ask me.

Originally Posted by ScooterKrunch

I'm sure there are disadvantages to all of this but I think they would be tolerable for the convenience and consistency in licensing gained.

Disadvantages? That's an understatement.

I'll trade your so-called 'inconveniences' for my rights as an American, thank you.
.