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

[craigc]

I'd like to see lifetime LTCF permits as well as hunting lincenses AND a stand your ground law

[cybrus]

Ideally, I'd like to see § 912. Possession of weapon on school property amended to include possession of a LTCF as a valid defense. If that's not possible, at least have it clarified as to what exactly defines "other lawful purpose"

Reason? I have a son who will be starting school in a few years and I'd like to be able to accompany him while walking to/from school as well as not be disarmed while visiting the school for any other reason...

§ 912. Possession of weapon on school property
1. Definition. -- Notwithstanding the definition of "weapon" in section 907 (relating to possessing instruments of crime), "weapon" for purposes of this section shall include but not be limited to any knife, cutting instrument, cutting tool, nun-chuck stick, firearm, shotgun, rifle and any other tool, instrument or implement capable of inflicting serious bodily injury.
2. Offense defined. -- A person commits a misdemeanor of the first degree if he possesses a weapon in the buildings of, on the grounds of, or in any conveyance providing transportation to or from any elementary or secondary publicly-funded educational institution, any elementary or secondary private school licensed by the Department of Education or any elementary or secondary parochial school.
3. Defense. -- It shall be a defense that the weapon is possessed and used in conjunction with a lawful supervised school activity or course or is possessed for other lawful purpose.

[LittleRedToyota]

I have finally had time to come up with a half-done first draft of a position paper addressing the "character and reputation" clause. I will be reworking and adding to it over the next couple of weeks. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.

I have never written a legislative position paper before, but in researching the best practices for doing so, I found that they should be quite concise. Details and documentation should be available for back-up, but should not be included in the actual position paper. You want the posititon paper itself to be sort of an executive summary...or, at least, that's what I got out of my research into how to write them.

I encourage everyone else who is interested to write up such a paper on whatever aspects of the UFA you would like to see changed and submit to the paper to Whitefeather who can then circulate it among the ACSL legislative committee, friendly legislators, etc. Even if some of the papers cover the same topic, that will allow them/us to pull the strengths of each paper and combine them into the best possible presentation fo "our side".

I will be fleshing out this one and writing another one regarding the PSP "sales database" over the next couple of weeks.

Problem
Pennsylvania citizens have suffered improper revocations/denials of a License to Carry Firearms (LTCF) as a result of abuse of the “character and reputation” clause [Pa. Consolidated Statutes: Title 18: Chapter 61: Subchapter A (“Uniform Firearms Act”): Section 6109(d)(3) and Section 6109(e)(1)(i)] by county sheriffs.

Section 6109(d)(3): investigate whether the applicant's character and reputation are such that the applicant will not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety

Section 6109(e)(1)(i) [An LTCF shall not be issued to] an individual whose character and reputation is such that the individual would be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety.

These clauses are being invoked in cases where the sheriff disagrees with a legal action of the LTCF holder (often legally open carrying a handgun) even though there is clearly no reason to believe the individual’s character and reputation are such that the person is likely to act in a manger dangerous to public safety. In at least one case (the case of Greg Rotz), the sheriff involved (former Sheriff Wollyung [??]) admitted in the media prior to the hearing of the appeal of the revocation that the revocation would be overturned as he did not actually have grounds for the revocation. In another case (the case of Meleanie Hain), the Sheriff involved [get name] admitted in the revocation appeal hearing that he did not actually conduct an investigation as required by the UFA prior to revoking Ms. Hain’s LTCF and revoked her LTCF entirely because Ms. Hain was legally open carrying a handgun. In Philadelphia, LTCFs have been revoked in cases where citizens have simply had their guns stolen and properly reported the theft to the Philadelphia Police Department.

In order to rectify these improper revocations, effected citizens must appeal the revocation after the fact. Doing so involves spend several thousand dollars on attorneys’ fees and enduring several months of not having an LTCF while awaiting the hearing date. There is no due process prior to the revocation, and it is impossible for the citizen to have justice after the fact as, even in cases where the LTCF is reinstated, the citizen is deprived of several thousand dollars in attorneys’ fees and suffered the deprivation of his or her LTCF for an extended period of time. Meanwhile, a sheriff who abuses these clauses faces no ramification. Thus, sheriffs can (and have) invoke these clauses to improperly deprive citizens of their rights and privileges with impunity.

Possible Solutions

1. The ideal solution would be to simply strike Section 6109(d)(3) and Section 6109(e)(1)(i) from the UFA. The UFA already provides an enumerated list of offenses that should prevent the issuance to or allow the revocation of an LTCF from an individual who really is likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety and has been shown, via a conviction obtained via due process of one of the enumerated offenses, to be such an individual. Basing the decision to grant/deny or revoke an LTCF solely on the objective criteria of whether or not the individual has been convicted of one of the enumerated offenses will ensure that law-abiding citizens throughout the commonwealth are treated equally and fairly and will not be subject to having their rights and privileges taken due to whims, opinions, and political leanings of individual sheriffs while preventing those who have been shown via due process to be a danger to society from obtaining or keeping an LTCF.

2. A possible alternative solution would be to add a to the “character and reputation” clause the criteria of a conviction of a crime that would form a reasonable basis for such a deduction. For example:

Section 6109(d)(3): investigate whether the applicant's character and reputation are such that the applicant will not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety as evidenced by a conviction for a crime which itself is dangerous to public safety.

Section 6109(e)(1)(i) [An LTCF shall not be issued to] an individual whose character and reputation is such that the individual would be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety as evidenced by a conviction for a crime which itself is dangerous to public safety.

3. Another possible alternative solution would be to require a hearing prior to the revocation. While this alternative is less than ideal as it would still open citizens to being forced to spend thousands of dollars on attorneys’ fees by a rogue sheriff, it would at least prevent the actual unjust revocation of the LTCF.

[knight0334]

I'd like to see a full blown decriminalization of carrying guns, openly, concealed, in a vehicle, or where/how ever, with licensing being optional.

Since that above is like wishing upon a star, I would settle for the following.

UFA(CH 61)
1. strike the vehicle portion of that laws, and define in/on a vehicle as an extension of one's place of abode.
2. an affirmation of open carry. It wouldn't make open carry legal, but rather definitively protect an existing right to do so under Constitutional protection.
3. Strike the City of First Class provision. 1st class cities are still part of PA and shouldn't be off-limits to Constitutionally protected unlicensed open carry.


Changes for laws outside of the the UFA (Chapter 61).
1. Change Chapter 5 to provide for Stand Your Ground Provisions with civil/criminal persecution protections
2. Change Ch 5 again to provide for the assumption that someone that unlawfully enters a home is there to cause harm, and use of deadly force is justified so long as fair warning is given for them to leave(to save the life of those who honestly mistakenly enter the wrong home). Warning can be defined as oral, waved flag/sign, horn, beeper, something thrown at the perp, etc. ...fair warning, we dont need to be shooting utility or contractors that (re)enter the wrong place(it happens alot).

[Penguini66]

Originally Posted by knight0334

I'd like to see a full blown decriminalization of carrying guns, openly, concealed, in a vehicle, or where/how ever, with licensing being optional.

Since that above is like wishing upon a star,...

I don't really think it is so much wishing upon a star. I think it may be a good time to plant the seed for the elimination of the LTCF(or making it optional...I like the optional idea because of some of the current nuances like applying for out of state licenses, reciprocity, the "loaning" to a LTCF holder loophole and the whole school zone issue. But perhaps those can be handled as well.)

Why should we enact this law? I don't want anything enacted. I want the whole LTCF and any laws relating to "licensed" carry removed from the law. Concealed carry, just like open carry, should be made legal by lack of law.

Why is there a problem with this existing firearm law? The requirement to get a license to carry a firearm is redundant with the requirements to purchase or laws to possess a firearm. In order to purchase and/or own a firearm you must also practically pass the same "test" that one must pass for the LTCF.

I see no real benefit to issuance of a LTCF.

One must answer the same questions to purchase a firearm.
One must pass the same background check to purchase a firearm.
The only real difference is the "references" that are rarely contacted by the sheriff.

So, if I go out and legally purchase a firearm I generally meet the same criteria as if I had just went through the process of obtaining a LTCF. Point being that it makes no logical sense for the state to say, "OK, here's your gun. Enjoy it. But just because we let you buy it doesn't mean you can use it". And by "use" I mean to carry. That makes no sense.

My question then is, and I really struggle with this one, what is the benefit of a LTCF to the state(And by state, I mean the people...not government or law enforcement)?
--Does it stop people who illegally obtain firearms from carrying firearms?
--Does it weed out some people who somehow are allowed to purchase a firearm yet do not qualify to actually "use" that firearm?
--Does it allow DA's to "lump on" extra charges in the event of a firearms infraction? For example, "He was charged with possession of a stolen firearm and carrying without a LTCF". I can kind of understand that one but being in possession of a stolen firearm in the first place should get you in enough hot water in the first place.


Why is there a need to pass this law?
1. Save money. Sheriff's offices (and the Philly PD) all across the state are burdened with the responsibility of processing LTCF applications. In addition, as we may see in Lebanon County, unlawful actions of a Sheriff can end up costing the county many additional dollars. All of this is wasted money that could be better spent or given back to the taxpayers.
2. Per the state and federal constitution, in my humble opinion, the right to "bear arms" is a right and should not be treated like a licensed privilege. It was wrong when the LTCF was instituted and it is still wrong today.
3. Along those lines of thought, individual citizens should not be burdened with paying a license fee to practice a right. No matter how small the fee.

WHY do we need to correct this problem?
Lastly then, I do not want the state to sell a firearm to a neighbor of mine that the state would not trust that same person to "use". So, if you sell a firearm to them then you damn well better trust them to "use" said firearm.

[Pa. Patriot]

§ 6106. Firearms not to be carried without a license.

1. Offense defined. --
1. Except as provided in paragraph (2), any person who carries a firearm in any vehicle or any person who carries a firearm concealed on or about his person, except in his place of abode or fixed place of business,
SNIP
_________

This really needs changed to clarify the definition of abode, or way better yet, except private property.

There is no reason a person should be prevented from CC on their own property without a LTCF. For that matter, any private property that they have permission.

[knight0334]

Originally Posted by Pa. Patriot

§ 6106. Firearms not to be carried without a license.

1. Offense defined. --
1. Except as provided in paragraph (2), any person who carries a firearm in any vehicle or any person who carries a firearm concealed on or about his person, except in his place of abode or fixed place of business,
SNIP
_________

This really needs changed to clarify the definition of abode, or way better yet, except private property.

There is no reason a person should be prevented from CC on their own property without a LTCF. For that matter, any private property that they have permission.

Theres been a bill proposed a few times that would have done just that as I have embolden. It used the definition for "dwelling" as the "place of abode". Right now you have to rely on a mix of case law, common definition, Black's law, and passages/usage in other portions of law.

[ehidle]

Originally Posted by fierojimmy

I've got a few suggestions:

In concert with the above; I would like to see the UFA clarified with regards to open carry and/or licensing requirements to carry while on a motorcycle, bicycle or horse, as opposed to "in a vehicle" as the current version states.

I bicycle is already a vehicle according to PA Law. I don't know about a horse, but I would assume a Motorcycle is also a vehicle considering it is registered, insured, and titled as such.

http://www.dot.state.pa.us/bike/web/bikelaws.htm

[ehidle]

I would like to see the following legislation. It'd be new, so I have no numbers:

"The Commonwealth shall pass no laws abridging the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms in their places of residence, on or about their persons, or in any publicly accessible place within The Commonwealth."

"The Commonwealth shall pass no laws abridging the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves or others, or their property, or of The Commonwealth." (we already kinda have this one)

"No person shall file, in any court within The Commonwealth, any civil suit against a citizen who has used force in defense of themselves or others, or in defense of The Commonwealth, where such defense was necessary to protect life or property of themselves or others, or The Commonwealth."

[WhiteFeather]

Is this ALL of the suggestions everyone on PAFOA has to make to the UFA wish list?

Note some of the ones you already posted are already planned for introduction in bills or amendment form to similar bills.



I was surprised no one suggested a two tier firearms carrying system.


One for keeping the current permit system for reciprocity sake purposes only with carrying conclead firearms in other states.


The other one was doing away with the sheriff issuse permit requirement with carry /transporting firearms concealed in the commonwealth only, much like you can do with open carry firearms without any permission, with the only requirement is that you are not a prohibited individual and are of legal age.

Model much like the Alaska / Vermont language is now.

I am firmly convinced that Free Citizens shouldn’t need a permit or any permission from the government to exercise a Constitutional right.




Going to be putting this all together in a wish list over the next week or so there is still a limited time to make your sugestions.




Its going to be a very interesting session hope you are all up for the long fight.

WE are also planning a spring introduction at another legislative interactive lobbying event in Harrisburg details will following soon as they are confirmed.
It will be similar to our last one, It’s my sincere wish that many of you can take the day off to attend this one as you will soon understand what we will be facing in the upcoming session.
Thank you for ALL of your suggestions and input to this thread, I will do my best to get them in action for consideration.


http://forum.pafoa.org/political-138...arrisburg.html (Second Amendment Second to None Rally in Harrisburg)