New Threat in the Senate

[GunLawyer001]

Originally Posted by danp

Just want to break down the language of this here to the best of my ability, hopefully if I make any mistakes Rule10b5 and/or GunLawyer can slap me around a bit.

For the purposes of 6111 the definition from 6102 is used, which defines a "firearm" as:



So to the best of my knowledge this only deals with handguns, and some NFA items.

Now onto 6111...

First, it modifies 6111(g)(2) to make violation of 6111 a second degree felony instead of a third degree felony.

Secondly it adds a new offense under 6111.6 for "Straw Purchases"

"Straw Purchases" are defined under 6111.6(a) as:

6111.6(b) lays out the presumption of guilt based in the absence of

and

Of last importance is 6111.6(c) which lays out valid defenses:

So it appears that if you're gifting a firearm, that's OK since it is a defense, and then if you have a police report saying it was stolen, or a record of legal transfer you're OK.

I consider myself somewhat good at being able to discern the jist of our statutes but this one I think is a tad over my head on some of the specifics.

My quick reading of this is consistent with your reading, Dan. I have 2 main problems with this language:

1 - It's already a crime to transfer a handgun without using an FFL (with minor exceptions between spouses, grandparent/grandchild, parent/child), so this merely adds a second charge to the existing charge.

2 - It criminalizes my buying a handgun at a remote gunshow, knowing that my buddy has been looking for one, with me intending to sell it to him for what I paid, as a favor to my buddy. It's not a gift, and the proposes law doesn't make an exception for me subsequently transferring it to my buddy through a local FFL. The bill should CLEARLY target subsequent PRIVATE transfers of handguns, not ALL subsequent transfers, since every transfer via an FFL is subject to PICS. "Straw purchases" are bad because they lead to private, unlawful transfers.

On the other hand, it's better than "One Gun A Month."

[Brick]

All in all and even though a this proposal only effects transfers to person NOT QUALIFIED (i.e. convicted felons). I still believe we should oppose this on the grounds that straw purchases are a Federal Offense. Now I know a criminal is a criminal and who really cares whether they do Federal time or state time. But the Feds have already made a statement by staking this territory out, let them bear the expense of enforcing it! If they refuse to enforce then it's up to the states to beat them over the head with their own law until they start enforcement or repeal the law and return control to the states.

[Rule10b5]

It's confusing because it is poorly written. I don't know whether this is intentional.

In any case:

First, 6111.6(a) makes it illegal to purchase a gun with the intent of later transferring it. So, if you buy a gun, intending to shoot it for a bit, and then resell it (because of the gift exception), you're violating the proposed law.

As a baseline, if you fit the above, it is the commonwealth's duty to prove your intent at the time of purchase.

This is irritating, but not so bad, because your intent is whatever you say it is.

The problem, though, is 6111.6(b), which creates a statutory presumption regarding your intent. This is where I read the statute and scratch my head.

Presumption.--In the absence of:
11 (1) any report by the purchaser to law enforcement
12 authorities that the firearm has been stolen; and
13 (2) any record of a lawful sale of the firearm
14 possession of the firearm, on or after the date of its purchase,
15 by a person other than the purchaser of the firearm shall give
16 rise to a rebuttable presumption that the purchaser, at the time
17 of purchase, knew or intended that the firearm would thereafter
18 be transferred to another individual.

If the word after the ";" were "or" instead of "and" the clause would make sense. As written, it appears that UNLESS (i) you report a firearm as stolen; and at the same time; (ii) have a record of it being lawfully sold, if it is in someone else's possession, you're presumed to have intended to be a party to a strawman transaction. This makes no sense because the two conditions are mutually exclusive. You can't report a gun as stolen and lawfully sell it at the same time.

I suspect that the person who drafted it is just an idiot, and meant to write "or" but got confused.

Finally, there is nothing wrong with gifting a firearm, or purchasing a firearm with the intent of gifting it.

Anyway, even if the "and" were changed to "or" the proposed statute would still suck. And it creates a registry.

[danp]

Originally Posted by GunLawyer001

2 - It criminalizes my buying a handgun at a remote gunshow, knowing that my buddy has been looking for one, with me intending to sell it to him for what I paid, as a favor to my buddy. It's not a gift, and the proposes law doesn't make an exception for me subsequently transferring it to my buddy through a local FFL. The bill should CLEARLY target subsequent PRIVATE transfers of handguns, not ALL subsequent transfers, since every transfer via an FFL is subject to PICS. "Straw purchases" are bad because they lead to private, unlawful transfers.

Wouldn't 6111.6(b)(2) take that into account?

I've never seen the "Presumption" word used before so I wasn't 100% sure how to read that, but I assumed it meant if you had either of the things listed in 6111.6(b) you were good to go.

[danp]

Originally Posted by Rule10b5

If the word after the ";" were "or" instead of "and" the clause would make sense. As written, it appears that UNLESS (i) you report a firearm as stolen; and at the same time; (ii) have a record of it being lawfully sold, if it is in someone else's possession, you're presumed to have intended to be a party to a strawman transaction. This makes no sense because the two conditions are mutually exclusive. You can't report a gun as stolen and lawfully sell it at the same time.

I suspect that the person who drafted it is just an idiot, and meant to write "or" but got confused.

This is what confused me the most, I figured I wasn't reading it right. The 'and' instead of an 'or' looks to be the serious problem here.

[Rule10b5]

Originally Posted by danp

This is what confused me the most, I figured I wasn't reading it right. The 'and' instead of an 'or' looks to be the serious problem here.

Nope, you were reading it right. Somebody screwed up, perhaps intentionally.

[danp]

I just got off the phone with Senator Greenleaf's office and raised the issue of the 'and' vs 'or' problem with 6111.6(b). The man I spoke to (Mr. Warner) very quickly realized the potential issue there and promised it would be taken care of before the bill goes any further.

Whether or not the bill as a whole is good or not is up for debate, but hopefully they'll at the very least fix that language problem either way.

[Rule10b5]

Originally Posted by danp

I just got off the phone with Senator Greenleaf's office and raised the issue of the 'and' vs 'or' problem with 6111.6(b). The man I spoke to (Mr. Warner) very quickly realized the potential issue there and promised it would be taken care of before the bill goes any further.

Whether or not the bill as a whole is good or not is up for debate, but hopefully they'll at the very least fix that language problem either way.

Well, that's some progress. The bill is still bullshit, even without the presumption, because it precludes a person who is not an FFL from ever admitting to buying a gun "and selling it when I get bored with it." As written, unless you're intending to buy it and keep it forever, you're technically violating the statute.

[KeithPA]

25 (e) Pennsylvania State Police.--The Pennsylvania State
26 Police shall retain information related to handgun purchases,
27 including the number of handguns sold by a licensed importer,
28 licensed manufacturer or licensed dealer to any one person, and
29 the number of handguns purchased by each person. The
30 Pennsylvania State Police shall use the information to
-------
1 investigate whether the person, licensed importer, licensed
2 manufacturer or licensed dealer may be in violation of section
3 6111 (relating to sale or transfer of firearms) or this section.
4 Section 3. This act shall take effect in 60 days.

This bill reinforces PICS. We should be fighting to get PICS handed over to NICS so then the PSP can't maintain their illegal sales "database" *cough* Registry *cough*

Thats my concern

[danp]

Originally Posted by Rule10b5

Well, that's some progress. The bill is still bullshit, even without the presumption, because it precludes a person who is not an FFL from ever admitting to buying a gun "and selling it when I get bored with it." As written, unless you're intending to buy it and keep it forever, you're technically violating the statute.

Is that true? If we assume for a second (b) gets changed to an "or" wouldn't that mean as long as you had either a police report saying it was stolen or proof of legal transfer you'd be fine? Since this statute only covers firearms that have to be transferred through an FFL anyways you'll always have one or the other.

All in all I think this law is redundant, pointless, and bad, but I do want to make sure I have a complete understanding of it.