HB 1536 - Firearm Sales Restrictions

[cybrus]

HB 1536

INTRODUCED BY McGEEHAN, BLACKWELL, BRENNAN, CRUZ, JAMES AND
LEVDANSKY, JUNE 18, 2007

1 Amending Title 18 (Crimes and Offenses) of the Pennsylvania
2 Consolidated Statutes, further providing for sale or transfer
3 of firearms.

4 The General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
5 hereby enacts as follows:
6 Section 1. Section 6111(a) of Title 18 of the Pennsylvania
7 Consolidated Statutes is amended to read:
8 § 6111. Sale or transfer of firearms.
9 (a) Time and manner of delivery.--
10 (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), no seller shall
11 deliver a firearm to the purchaser or transferee thereof:
12 (i) unless the purchaser or transferee demonstrates
13 accreditation in a firearm safety education program
14 approved by the commissioner; and
15 (ii) until 48 hours shall have elapsed from the time
16 of the application for the purchase thereof[, and, when
17 delivered, the firearm shall be securely wrapped and
18 shall be unloaded].

1 (2) Thirty days after publication in the Pennsylvania
2 Bulletin that the Instantaneous Criminal History Records
3 Check System has been established in accordance with the
4 Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (Public Law 103-159, 18
5 U.S.C. § 921 et seq.), no seller shall deliver a firearm to
6 the purchaser thereof until the provisions of this section
7 have been satisfied[, and, when].
8 (3) When delivered, the firearm shall be securely
9 wrapped and shall be unloaded.
10 * * *
11 Section 2. This act shall take effect in 60 days.

[N3HCP]

At first glance this looks like yet another Philadelphia based non-starter. Don't they ever give up!!??!

[bubba23]

Originally Posted by N3HCP

Don't they ever give up!!??!

Nope, and neither should we!

[God's Country]

They must enjoy being bitch slapped.

Let the slapping commence!

[SigForLife]

There would go the ability of an PA resident to sell a rifle to another PA resident without going through all the checks. Next we will find out that they have been keeping a registry, which goes against the PA Constitution.

[mauser]

Originally Posted by SigForLife

There would go the ability of an PA resident to sell a rifle to another PA resident without going through all the checks. Next we will find out that they have been keeping a registry, which goes against the PA Constitution.

I think that we already found out that they are keeping a registry, at least as far as recent or semi-recent sales and ownership transfers are concerned. Aren't there law suits in progress about this very issue?
I would like someone to prove me wrong.

[GunLawyer001]

Originally Posted by SigForLife

There would go the ability of an PA resident to sell a rifle to another PA resident without going through all the checks. Next we will find out that they have been keeping a registry, which goes against the PA Constitution.

The default definition of "firearm" in the UFA includes only pistols, rifles with barrels under 16", and shotguns with barrels under 18". So, unless one of the many other definitions within the UFA applies, this wouldn't affect ordinary non-NFA rifles.

A lot of the other sections within Chapter 61 of Title 18 (the UFA) use special, one-time-only definitions of "firearm", but they all clearly specify that the new definition only applies to that section. So the ban on ownership by prohibited persons is broader than the restriction on private sales. Some definitions include anything that spits bullets using gunpowder, whether antique or not. I'd have to look at the existing section, look at the complete proposed bill, and parse it out, but since these Philadelphia gun laws are always DOA, it's not worth it.

[Brick]

Originally Posted by cybrus

HB 1536

INTRODUCED BY McGEEHAN, BLACKWELL, BRENNAN, CRUZ, JAMES AND
LEVDANSKY, JUNE 18, 2007


(2), no seller shall
11 deliver a firearm to the purchaser or transferee thereof:
12 (i) unless the purchaser or transferee demonstrates
13 accreditation in a firearm safety education program
14 approved by the commissioner; and

This is the portion I object to! They seek to require participation in and accreditation from a firearm safety course and leave everything up to the PSP Commish to decide what is acceptable.

They make no allowance for those who've been hunting and shooting for years who might have never attended a formal class. How about YHEC, how about military training, how about competition ratings from IPSC, NRA, IDPA, ISSF or the governing bodies for skeet and trap shooters will these count? My point here is that they are pushing the responsibility for protecting our rights off on someone who is not accountable to the electorate of the Commonwealth.

Note: James is a co-sponsor of HB 30 other bills in this year's anti-gun crop.

[theshadow]

Yea but as long as Slick Eddie is in the catbird seat, they'll keep trying, with his encouragement. I'm sorry, but I know this makes me look bad, and I've said it many times before. Those that are accepting Welfare checks should be prohibited from voting. The founding fathers had the clause "Land Owning" Freemen for a reason, and tat reason was, if you are not gainfully contributing to society and your community, aka skin in the game, you should not be elegable to tell other people how taxes they pay should be spent. I've gone into more detail on this elsewhere, but that is the nutshell. IF we take away the powerbase of "Ask what the Commonwealth can do for/ give me" the liberal politicians would not have anyone to pander to, and would not be making restrictions on those of us trying to make a living for ourselves, and enjoy the security/ safty/ comfort of our neighborhood.

[ChamberedRound]

Originally Posted by Brick

This is the portion I object to! They seek to require participation in and accreditation from a firearm safety course and leave everything up to the PSP Commish to decide what is acceptable.

They make no allowance for those who've been hunting and shooting for years who might have never attended a formal class. How about YHEC, how about military training, how about competition ratings from IPSC, NRA, IDPA, ISSF or the governing bodies for skeet and trap shooters will these count? My point here is that they are pushing the responsibility for protecting our rights off on someone who is not accountable to the electorate of the Commonwealth.

Agreed. In addition, what about the single parent who's struggling to make ends meet, and can't afford the training? Training is important, but it shouldn't be mandatory; a mandate as such may put one's right to self-defense out of reach simply because of cost. We can't create a system whereby only those who can afford the cost of training and licensing can defend themselves, especially when many people have the necessary training through life experience.