PA House Committee Hearings on gun violence

[billamj]

Originally Posted by theshadow

twenty four hours later and no reply from the Demo-Rats.

Did you really think that there would be? These folks are so anti they can't even think of the words firearm and Constitiution in the same sentence.

[Brick]

Was anyone able to attend the 23 March hearing in Philly? If yes, please provide a review of the proceedings.

Note the next scheduled hearing is:
March 27
Erie
Booker T. Washington Center
1720 Holland St.
10:00 A.M. to Noon

[KeithPA]

I'm going to this one. I'll try and take notes, I figure it's probably going to be a bunch of crap, but who knows.

[awkx]

I took some notes at the March 28 meeting, so I'm posting them in case anybody is interested. These are only partial notes; I recorded mostly what I personally thought was interesting, new, and noteworthy. I tried to be as accurate as possible, but I'm not making any guarantees.

The meeting started at about 9:30 AM and lasted until about 11:45 AM.
The first speaker was a mother whose child had been sadly killed by a felon with a handgun. She voiced support for the legislation allowing only 1 handgun to be purchased per month.
The second speaker related how her sister had been killed by a mentally deranged individual with a fully automatic assault rifle. Said felon possessed a stockpile of AK-47s, et cetera.

Next spoke Dan Fitzsimmons, chief trial deputy at the DA's office. He expressed support for legislation criminalizing straw purchases per se. He spoke neither for nor against the one-handgun-per-month bill. He expressed the need to adequately fund law-enforcement programs, mentioning that there is long backlog for the DNA matching program.

Detective Joe Bielevicz said that most illegal handguns are associated with drugs and are obtained by straw purchases or by stealing them. Most straw purchasers sell multiple guns. Criminals have a preference for straw-purchased guns, because of their better reliability over used guns and because it gives them street-credibility. Kids sometimes steal their parents' guns and sell them to get drugs.

Many guns that turn up on the street are not reported stolen by their original owner. Many of these guns were straw-purchased, although it is acknowledged that sometimes the owner legitimately did not know the gun was stolen (e.g., hunting cabins). Detective Bielevicz advocated for legislation that requires gun owners to report stolen guns. He also advocated upgrading the penalty for trading a gun for illegal drugs to a higher-class misdemeanor that would prevent the perpetrator from buying guns in the future.

As an example of how the state-police gun database can be useful, Detective Bielevicz gave an example of a man in Butler County. The man, who had never owned a gun previously, bought 12 guns in 1 month. Two handguns turned up on the street and were traced back to him. When police confronted him about these 2 guns, he initially denied have bought the 10 other guns. But when the police found the 10 other guns through the database, he confessed.

Mr. Kim Stolfer, of the Allegheny County Sportsmen's League, said that there is no evidence that that the one-per-month handgun bill would actually reduce crime; there is only speculation. It has been tried in other states without noticeable success. It would also deprive law-enforcement of multiple-purchase ATF reports. And it would eat up law-enforcement funding that could be spent more effectively. Many existing laws are not effectively enforced against criminals. Criminals often only get probation. Moreover, the 1/month bill would wrongfully infringe on the right of citizens to keep and bear arms.

Dr. Bruce Dixon, of the Allegheny County Health Dept, said that drug abuse is a major source of the problem. Also, he mentioned that gun trade-in programs are ineffective, because only law-abiding citizens, not criminals, turn in their guns. Most turned-in guns were inherited from someone who recently passed away.

Next spoke a warden from the county jail. He said that while some people should certainly be jailed for life, nevertheless incarceration is not the answer for everything. We need better programs for released ex-convicts, to ensure that they don't re-offend.

Khari Mosley, of the PA League of Young Voters, said that violence and gangs are major problems confronting us. Many inner-city children become violent killers somewhere between the ages of 5 and 15 years old. We need to address this somehow.

Rep. Dwight Evans, the majority chairman of the Appropriations Committee, said that we need to have a real discussion and work together toward a solution, rather than merely have each group announce its stance.
(I think Rep. Evans has a really good point here: If we work with other groups to support effective legislation that has little or no undue burden on lawful gun-owners, then we would be in a better position to help prevent the passage of ineffective and infringing legislation. We have done this successfully in the past, as Mr. Stolfer pointed out, and we should continue with increased efforts in the future.)

A representative on the Appropriations Committee questioned whether our current drug laws really work. It may be politically incorrect, but perhaps we need to scale back the current harsh penalties for less-serious drug offenses. The money saved on enforcement and long incarceration terms could be better spent on more effective law-enforcement programs. And, actual felons who commit violent crimes would not be paroled early to make room for non-violent drug offenders.

Dr. Dixon: We can try small-scale experiments for changes in drug laws. Rather than change everything all at once, it may be more politically feasible to try changes for just small geographic areas and see how well it works.

Warden: We must think about what released prisoners will do after their sentence is over. Sometimes relapse is part of the recovery process.

Audience member 1: We need effective programs for people after they are released from prison. Many (but not all) want help but can't get it. An ex-convict who can't get a job may resort back to selling drugs to make a living.

Audience member 2: Poor education and general social decay is a major problem for inner-city children. Better discipline is needed.

Audience member 3 (firearm owner): Recidivism is a major problem. Criminals do not fear state prison. They are often paroled early, e.g., rapist released after only 2 years. We need harsher penalties to be enforced for violent crimes. The one-handgun-per-month legislation infringes on our rights. Suppose you buy one handgun, and then another goes on sale in a few days: you wouldn't be able to buy it because of the artificial limit of 1 per month.

Store owner: We need to deal with the persons who commit crimes, not the instruments that they use. The state gun database is highly inaccurate; he personally received a call from the State Police regarding a gun that never belonged to him. Some people regularly sell their current gun and buy a different model; they enjoy using a variety of brands of guns for sporting or recreational plinking. The one-gun-per-month scheme would unjustly impede the lawful activities of these firearm enthusiasts.

[T Durdin]

Thanks Awkx,

I was very interested to read your notes of one of these hearings. There were none in my area to attend.

[Brick]

awkx, you did a great job with your report. Very thought provoking.

But would you and the others reading this please think about my comment below and let me know if I am wrong.

Originally Posted by awkx

As an example of how the state-police gun database can be useful, Detective Bielevicz gave an example of a man in Butler County. The man, who had never owned a gun previously, bought 12 guns in 1 month. Two handguns turned up on the street and were traced back to him. When police confronted him about these 2 guns, he initially denied have bought the 10 other guns. But when the police found the 10 other guns through the database, he confessed.

What state police database???
according to Title 18 section 6111.4

§ 6111.4. Registration of firearms.
Notwithstanding any section of this chapter to the contrary, nothing in this chapter shall be construed to allow any government or law enforcement agency or any agent thereof to create, maintain or operate any registry of firearm ownership within this Commonwealth. For the purposes of this section only, the term "firearm" shall include any weapon that is designed to or may readily be converted to expel any projectile by the action of an explosive or the frame or receiver of any such weapon.

Which as far as I know is still in force. THERE IS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE ANY DATABASE! Because a database is a registry and registries are illegal. This is really great when the Police are breaking state lews and getting convictions (or at least confessions) with illegal information and nobody not even even the judge knows!

[Brick]

Sorry guys, but I haven't quite got the hang of using the "quote feature" to select multiple sections.

Originally Posted by awkx

Rep. Dwight Evans, the majority chairman of the Appropriations Committee, said that we need to have a real discussion and work together toward a solution, rather than merely have each group announce its stance.
(I think Rep. Evans has a really good point here: If we work with other groups to support effective legislation that has little or no undue burden on lawful gun-owners, then we would be in a better position to help prevent the passage of ineffective and infringing legislation. We have done this successfully in the past, as Mr. Stolfer pointed out, and we should continue with increased efforts in the future.)

With all possible respect to awkx and Mr. Stolfer, but the only point Dwight Evans has is under his hat!

Discussing the preservation of your rights with him will be a total waste of time, since he will insist and continue to insist that you "compromise" knowing full well that he can only gain with each small increment of your rights that you give up to him. Each time he makes a gain it is only a "good first step" and comes at the cost of another infringement onyour rights.

By the way Evans is one of the more prominent authors of the bills we're trying to defeat.

[LittleRedToyota]

Originally Posted by Brick

This is really great when the Police are breaking state lews and getting convictions (or at least confessions) with illegal information and nobody not even even the judge knows!

actually, the judge knows...everyone knows.

the state supreme court ruled that the state police "database" is not a "registry" because it does not contain information on every gun in the state.

so, basically, the state supreme court arbitrarily re-defined "any registry" (which is what the law says) to mean "a complete registry".

complete BS, of course...but certainly not the first time the state (or US) supreme court has failed miserably to do its job of forcing the government to play by its own rules.

[Brick]

[quote=LittleRedToyota;43811]actually, the judge knows...everyone knows.

the state supreme court ruled that the state police "database" is not a "registry" because it does not contain information on every gun in the state.

so, basically, the state supreme court arbitrarily re-defined "any registry" (which is what the law says) to mean "a complete registry".
QUOTE]

Very interesting, but it raises more questions.

1. Who was the judge or judges that made that ruling?

2. Are they appointed or elected?

3. If elected, when do we get the chance to vote them out of office?

[awkx]

Regarding the PA Supreme Court decision on the State Police handgun database, the majority opinion can be found at: http://www.courts.state.pa.us/OpPost...J-1-2003mo.pdf
And the dissenting opinion at: http://www.courts.state.pa.us/OpPost...J-1-2003co.pdf

The Court notes that title 18 of the PA Code, section 6111.4, uses the phrase "registry of firearm ownership". Technically, the State Police database records the sale, not the ownership, of guns, and does not contain complete ownership information. The Court uses this as an excuse to allow the database. (Of course, it is fairly obvious that said database is used mainly to determine ownership of firearms, and thus it is in effect a registry of ownership, as the two dissenting Justices aptly observe.)

Originally Posted by Brick

... the only point Dwight Evans has is under his hat!

Brick, I agree with you that certain politicians are dead-set on gun control, and that it is useless to try to argue with them. However, I think some other people genuinely want to address the problem of urban violence. If they are open-minded & intelligent enough, it may be very possible to disabuse them of the notion that gun control is effective. (Of course, some groups -- <cough>Brady Campaign</cough> -- lack at least one of these attributes. It seems they can't get past a primitive fear of weapons, especially scary-looking guns that they call "assault weapons".)
When dealing with open-minded people, it is to our tactical advantage to not only shoot down gun control but also support an effective proposal for helping solve the urban violence problem. (E.g., enforce better discipline in urban schools, crack down hard on criminal gangs per se, re-formulate our drug prohibition laws in light of the fact that the main effect of the prohibition of alcohol in the 1920s was to promote criminal behavior, etc.). If we work with them on a solution that does not infringe the rights of lawful gun-owners, I think they would be less adamant in demanding gun control. Just my two cents' worth.