New Threat in the Senate

[Rule10b5]

Originally Posted by danp

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.

No, all that would mean is that the presumption that you engaged in a strawman transaction doesn't automatically attach.

If they can show that your intent was to resell, you're still in violation of the law. For example:

You post on this site that you're thinking about getting a new carry gun. Someone suggests a Glock 19, and says that if you don't like it, you can always sell it to him (or someone else on the board). You respond that you've always wanted to try out a Glock, and that it sounds like a great idea. You buy the gun, intending to try it out, and if you don't like it, sell it to the other poster.

Have you: "purchase(d) a firearm knowing or intending that the firearm will thereafter be transferred to another individual?"

It sure smells like it to me -- unless they're going to define thereafter as temporally proximate to the initial purchase.

The non-attachment of the presumption is just that -- non-attachment. It doesn't impair their ability to prove intent by another means. If strictly interpreted, a transfer through an FFL seems to technically violate the statute.

I know I'm taking the reading of the statute to its (idiotic) extreme, but that's the best way to approach something that you're trying to stop. Walk through it, step by step, and show how the result can't possibly make sense to any rational person. Do we really believe that it should be criminal for me to buy a gun, try it out, and if I don't like it, sell it to you through an FFL? Of course not. Nobody rational does. That's how you show what an idiot the senator is.

[Chevmeister]

Originally Posted by billamj

While this bill sounds like it has some potential to come down harder on staw purchasers, which we are all in favor of, the verbiage leaves a lot to be desired and would make it a second degree felony to buy a handgun as a gift for a relative.

SENATE BILL

No. 701 Session of 2007

INTRODUCED BY GREENLEAF, WASHINGTON, RAFFERTY, COSTA, BOSCOLA,
O'PAKE, TARTAGLIONE AND C. WILLIAMS, APRIL 2, 2007

REFERRED TO JUDICIARY, APRIL 2, 2007

AN ACT

1 Amending Title 18 (Crimes and Offenses) of the Pennsylvania
2 Consolidated Statutes, further providing for the offense of
3 sale or transfer of firearms; providing for the offense of
4 straw purchases; establishing penalties; and providing for
5 the powers and duties of the Pennsylvania State Police
6 relating to straw purchases.

7 The General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
8 hereby enacts as follows:
9 Section 1. Section 6111(g)(2) of Title 18 of the
10 Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes is amended to read:
11 § 6111. Sale or transfer of firearms.
12 * * *
13 (g) Penalties.--
14 * * *
15 (2) Any person, licensed dealer, licensed manufacturer
16 or licensed importer who knowingly or intentionally sells,
17 delivers or transfers a firearm under circumstances intended
18 to provide a firearm to any person, purchaser or transferee
19 who is unqualified or ineligible to control, possess or use a
20 firearm under this chapter commits a felony of the [third]

1 second degree and shall in addition be subject to revocation
2 of the license to sell firearms for a period of three years.
3 * * *
4 Section 2. Title 18 is amended by adding a section to read:
5 § 6111.6. Straw purchases.
6 (a) Offense defined.--No person, other than a licensed
7 dealer, licensed manufacturer or licensed importer may purchase
8 a firearm knowing or intending that the firearm will thereafter
9 be transferred to another individual.
10 (b) 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.
19 (c) Defense.--It is a defense to a violation of this section
20 that the person who purchased the firearm knew or intended that
21 the firearm would thereafter be transferred as a bona fide gift
22 to another individual.
23 (d) Penalties.--A violation of this section is a felony of
24 the second degree.
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
20070S0701B0793 - 2 -

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.

Link to SB701.

Yeah whoever wrote it was an idiot. whats this one multiple choice?

[danp]

Originally Posted by Chevmeister

Yeah whoever wrote it was an idiot. whats this one multiple choice?

No, that means the 'second' is removed and replaced with 'third'

[danp]

Originally Posted by Rule10b5

No, all that would mean is that the presumption that you engaged in a strawman transaction doesn't automatically attach.

Ok, that makes sense now, I had never seen the 'Presumption' keyword in a statute before, pardon my ignorance.

Originally Posted by Rule10b5

If they can show that your intent was to resell, you're still in violation of the law. For example:

You post on this site that you're thinking about getting a new carry gun. Someone suggests a Glock 19, and says that if you don't like it, you can always sell it to him (or someone else on the board). You respond that you've always wanted to try out a Glock, and that it sounds like a great idea. You buy the gun, intending to try it out, and if you don't like it, sell it to the other poster.

Have you: "purchase(d) a firearm knowing or intending that the firearm will thereafter be transferred to another individual?"

It sure smells like it to me -- unless they're going to define thereafter as temporally proximate to the initial purchase.

The non-attachment of the presumption is just that -- non-attachment. It doesn't impair their ability to prove intent by another means. If strictly interpreted, a transfer through an FFL seems to technically violate the statute.

I know I'm taking the reading of the statute to its (idiotic) extreme, but that's the best way to approach something that you're trying to stop. Walk through it, step by step, and show how the result can't possibly make sense to any rational person. Do we really believe that it should be criminal for me to buy a gun, try it out, and if I don't like it, sell it to you through an FFL? Of course not. Nobody rational does. That's how you show what an idiot the senator is.

Well it's becoming pretty obvious this is a bad law whether intentional or by poor drafting.

[danp]

Quick update on this:

I spoke to Mr. Warner in Senator Greenleaf's office again today regarding this bill.

I raised two issues:

1. This bill may be too broad and encompass legitimate firearm buying and selling activities.
2. This bill seems redundant as the activity it is intending to prohibit would already be illegal under multiple current federal and state statutes.

Mr. Warner assured me of three things:

1. That the intent of this bill is only to cover illegal straw purchases and not meant to target legitimate activity by law-abiding firearm owners.
2. That Senator Greenleaf is on our side.
3. That the purpose of this bill is to serve as an alternative to the other proposals being discussed that without question infringe on law abiding firearm owners rights such as one-gun-a-month, "assault weapon" bans, gun registration, and the like.

The PAFOA will work do everything in its power to make sure that if this bill is to move forward that the final wording will not affect anyone but those who are committing straw purchases.

We'll keep you all informed.

[billamj]

Thanks for all of your work on this one Dan. I knew that something smelled funny about this one but I just wasn't sure what it was. I'm VERY glad that I brought it to the forum and got better minds than mine working on it.

[Chevmeister]

Originally Posted by danp

No, that means the 'second' is removed and replaced with 'third'

Ok so im an idiot, i never could understand legalese. I should stick to reading blueprints. Thanks for setting me straight though. I learn alot here, one day i might have enough knowlege to write a letter to my representative. Till then ill leave it to those of us who dont make an ass out of ourselfs.

[danp]

Originally Posted by Chevmeister

I learn alot here, one day i might have enough knowlege to write a letter to my representative. Till then ill leave it to those of us who dont make an ass out of ourselfs.

I wouldn't wait personally. Even if you scribble "NO MOR GUNN LAWZ" on a napkin in crayon and mail it to your representative it's better than nothing.

I say that partly in jest, but in all honesty it's true. You don't have to be a lawyer to take part in the process, you just have to have the fortitude to do it regardless.

[Archiver]

Since the word "firearms" is used ....then doesnt this mean long arms can no longer be privately transfered?

[danp]

Originally Posted by Archiver

Since the word "firearms" is used ....then doesnt this mean long arms can no longer be privately transfered?

No because the definition of 'firearm' within 6111 only includes pistols and some NFA items.