Judiciary Committee Public Hearings

[Brick]

On bills that PAFOA members should oppose are scheduled for, 19 September to discuss HB 21, HB 41,
and HB 1744.

ACSL says the following about them:

"Regarding HB 21: WE OPPOSE THIS LEGISLATION

Many informed sources have told us that the Philadelphia bond system is out of step with the rest of the state and is in need of reform and is often inadequate to provide adequate incentive for those charged with violent crimes to return for trial.

However, HB 21 is flawed legislation. Real bail reform will get at violent criminals, not just people who possess firearms. This legislation singles out those who merely possess guns as part of the Philly politicians plan to scapegoat guns as cover for their failed criminal and social programs. It also mandates excessive bail for a person who has not committed a crime of violence and is likely to return, thus violating Article 1 sections 13 and 14.

Regarding HB 41: WE OPPOSE THIS LEGISLATION

On its face, this seems is far less draconian than previous legislation of this type. However, it appears to create another Multi Jurisdictional Task Force targeting guns instead of criminals. Lyndon B. Johnson said: "You do not examine legislation in light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in light of the wrongs it would do and the harms it would cause if improperly administered."

We do not fear our friend AG Tom Corbett, but Tom Corbett will not always be the AG. In the hands of a demagogic prosecutor, this new Bureau would be monstrous.

Further, given the enormous political pressure that this governor seems to be exerting upon the State Police to cause them to lobby for the passage of a gun ban and to flagrantly misinterpret firearm laws in a manner that infringes upon the peaceful pursuits of honest citizens, we must oppose this legislation.

Regarding HB 1744 WE OPPOSE THIS LEGISLATION

The notice seems innocuous and I believe is already addressed or can be emphasized even more in the next revision of the PSP summary of gun laws that is mandated with the sale of each handgun (The next revision should mention Permanent Brady Alternative and perhaps the elimination of the PICS system so that Pennsylvania can save the money by using the free federal system as most states do). However, we have major problems with the language being struck on page 1 lines 16-19.

We are also concerned about the "study" commissioned on page 3 of the legislation. There have been plenty of hearings and studies already. Those who keep going after guns are barking up the wrong tree (as has been proved by the NAS and CDC and many other unbiased reviews that have eviscerated studies that purport to equate gun control with crime control). We see no reason to waste more taxpayer money to pay Harrisburg careerists to keep looking up the wrong tree."

HB 1536 is scheduled for a public hearing on 25 Sept. HB 1536 you might remember is one that would allow sale of a firearm to an individual ONLY if the individual attended a FIREARMS SAFETY COURSE accredited by the PSP Commissioner.

So with regards to all of these, please take a little time to send a letter to Judiciary Committee Chairman:

Hon. Thomas R. Caltagirone
106 Irvis Office Building
PO Box 202127
Harrisburg, PA 17120-2127

Voicing your (firm but polite) opposition to these proposed laws.

[WhiteFeather]

If you want to email ALL the Representatives on the Judiciary Committee to voice your opposition to propsed bills mentioned in Brick's post.

Bernard T. O'Neill boneill@pahousegop.com R

Beverly Mackereth bmackere@pahousegop.com R

Bryan R. Lentz blentz@pahouse.net D

Carl W. Mantz cmantz@pahousegop.com R

Chelsa Wagner cwagner@pahouse.net D

Craig A. Dally cdally@pahousegop.com R

Dan B. Frankel dfrankel@pahouse.net D - send one anyway

Deberah Kula dkula@pahouse.net D

Glen R. Grell ggrell@pahousegop.com R

Greg S. Vitali gvitali@pahouse.net D

Harold James hjames@pahouse.net D - send one anyway

Jesse White jwhite@pahouse.net D

Jewell Williams jwilliam@pahouse.net D - send one anyway

John R. Evans jevans@pahousegop.com R

Joseph A. Petrarca jpetrarc@pahouse.net D

Kate Harper kharper@pahousegop.com R

Katie True ktrue@pahousegop.com R

Lisa Benningtonlbenning@pahouse.net D

Sean M. Ramaley sramaley@pahouse.net D

Thomas C. Creighton tcreight@pahousegop.com R

Tina Pickett tpickett@pahousegop.com R

Todd Rock trock@pahousegop.com R

Will Gabig wgabig@pahousegop.com R

Thomas R. Caltagirone tcaltagi@pahouse.net D - MAJORITY CHAIR OF COMMITTEE

Ronald S. Marisco rmarsico@pahousegop.com R - MINORITY CHAIR

Daylin Leach dleach@pahouse.net D Secretary

John E. Pallone jpallone@pahouse.net D

Don Walko dwalko@pahouse.net D

Kathy M. Manderino kmanderi@pahouse.net D



Send emails urging ALL of them not to support any of those bills or you may have the chance in the future to post section of these bad bills on PAFOA once they get passed into laws that effect all of us in negative ways.

One of the problems with freedom is the responsibility of supporting - DO SOMETHING to KEEP IT

[RoyJackson]

I hope some of you can get to Harrisburg for these hearings. I'm going to do my best to do so.
If you want to testify, contact your local representative ASAP to get your name on the list. Your rep's office will put you in contact with the cognizant person.

When I went (testifying against a "one gun per month" bill in 1998 or 1999), you had to have a written testimony sent to the commitee in advance.

It's an interesting and informative experience, going to one of these. It's also quite easy to make a fool of a sponsor of a bill if you have your facts.

[WhiteFeather]

House Judiciary Committee

Public Hearing on

HB 21, 41 and 1744

Thomas Caltagirone,

Chairman, House Judiciary Committee

September 19, 2007

Harrisburg

Capitol

Room 140 Main Capitol

10:00 a.m. - 3:00 p.m.

Agenda

The speakers for the meeting include the following:

10:00 a.m. - Lynne Abraham, Legislative Chair of PA District Attorneys Association.

10:20 a.m. - William McHale, Captain Pennsylvania State Police.

10:40 a.m. - The Honorable Mayor Tom McMahon City of Reading

11:00 a.m. - Andrew Paris, Legislative Liaison, Attorney General’s Office


Kim Stolfer ACSL legislative chairman, FOAC chairman (also PAFOA member) is also speaking at this hearing HOPIFULLY to keep these anti-gun bills from getting out of Judiciary committee unless they have major revisions.

It's also quite easy to make a fool of a sponsor of a bill if you have your facts.

I got the pleasure of watching Kim Stolfer make a fool out of one of the governers sportsman's advisors on sept 15 at Rep Marc Gergely & Rep Bill Kortz sportsmen and Outdoors expo in McKeesport.

[Brick]

Here is the message I sent regarding the first public hearing: Please feel free to use or improve on it as you wish.


Sir,


Regarding the subject Public Hearing I respectfully request that this correspondence be made part of the record.

I am a citizen resident of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, I have owned firearms of all legal types
and used them for all legal purposes, for as long as I have been able to do so. Simply stated, I ask you and your colleagues, to focus on the criminals, not on "guns" and most certainly not on restricting the rights of the law-abiding citizen.

I oppose HB 21 on the grounds that it is too broad and fails to safeguard the rights of an accused as required by Pennsylvania Constitution Article I Section 13 and safeguarded by Section 25. The phrase "for any offense" opens this legislation to all manner of abuse.

I oppose HB 41 because "illegal firearms trafficking" is one of the crimes that State and local police and the several District Attorneys are already supposed to be enforcing and prosecuting. If police and prosecutors are incapable of successfully enforcing current law, erecting a Super-Bureau to preside over their failure will not help. Additionally reports of such investigations and enforcement efforts are currently included in Pennsylvania's Uniform Crime Reporting System. The General Assembly, need only read the report.

With respect to HB 1744. I don't object to the "notice of limits" requirements. Since these are conditions that any legitimate firearms owner should know and abide by. However, I do object to Sections 6111.7 and 6127. Another study is simply a waste of resources, plus Pennsylvania State Police currently receive reports of multiple firearms purchases, what more information could be gathered? As to Section 6127, I can think of no good reason to grant the Attorney General superior powers or to allow he or his office to dispense with due process for any investigation.

[RoyJackson]

Who did you send this to, Brick?

[Brick]

Originally Posted by RoyJackson

Who did you send this to, Brick?

Caltigirone & Marsico and BCCs to all of the Republican committee members plus Daylin Leach, Committee Secretary.

[WhiteFeather]

Kim Stolfer sent me his written testimony at this hearing, IF anyone would like a copy of all 69 pages send me a PM with your email address. You find interesting reading.
We do have a problem in Harrisburg, there is a whole flood of anti-gun bills getting ready to be voted on and I personally don't think people like Kim Stolfer are going to be able to stop them WITHOUT ALL OF OUR HELP IN THIS EFFORT

TESTIMONY OF
KIM STOLFER

CHAIRMAN VICE-CHAIRMAN
LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE
ALLEGHENY COUNTY PA SPORTSMEN’S ASSOC.
SPORTSMEN’S LEAGUE







PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE
THE PENNSYLVANIA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
ON
HOUSE BILL 21
HOUSE BILL 41
HOUSE BILL 1744



September 19, 2007



Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, I am Kim Stolfer, Chairman of the Legislative Committee of the Allegheny County Sportsmen's League and Vice-Chairman of the Pennsylvania Sportsmen’s Association. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today as we seek solutions to the violence plaguing our urban centers.

The legislation before us (House Bills 21, 41, and 1744) present a wide range of issues and, in our opinion, some significant concerns. President Lyndon B. Johnson is reported to have once said: "You do not examine legislation in light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in light of the wrongs it would do and the harms it would cause if improperly administered." This is the premise that we use to guide our analysis of legislation. All three of these bills contain unacceptable uncertainties that should be rectified prior to serious consideration.

House Bill 21 p.n. 46

Many informed sources have told us that the Philadelphia bond system is out of step with the rest of the state and is in need of reform. These inadequacies in turn manifest a cavalier attitude and are often inadequate to provide the necessary incentive for those charged with violent crimes to return for trial.

However, HB 21 is flawed legislation. Real bail reform should apply to violent criminals who commit the bulk of violent crime, not just people who possess firearms. This legislation singles out those who merely possess guns and makes ‘no’ distinctions between unintentional violations and career criminals. By mandating excessive bail for a person who has not committed a crime of violence and we envision this ensnaring the average citizen more often than the career recidivist criminal thus violating Article 1, sections 13 and 14 of the PA Constitution. We oppose this legislation.

House Bill 41 p.n. 66

This legislation purports to answer illegal firearms trafficking with yet another Bureau to investigate and, hopefully, prosecute those most responsible for trafficking in illegal firearms. It does not address the seeming conflict between law enforcement failing to take advantage of current procedures available from the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms and district attorneys failing to apply the current firearms laws.

As an example a recent article in the Pittsburgh city paper [May 24, 2007] quoted an incident where in a drug addict provided seven firearms to her drug dealer. Once the firearms turned up in crime they were quickly tracked back to her. The following quote from the city paper article is illustrative of the larger problem:

• P.T. pled guilty to seven counts each of illegal delivery of a firearm, making a false statement to a firearm dealer and falsifying a statement to authorities -- the latter charges stemming from the fraudulent information she entered on her Firearms Transaction Record. She is now serving a sentence of 10 years' probation and won't be allowed to buy guns again.

Interestingly the police officer who was quoted in this article has previously appeared before this committee to deliver testimony seeking harsher penalties for straw purchase sales firearms and yet in this article he does not criticize the light sentence because of the remorse shown by the perpetrator.

• She didn't put up much of an argument, which [officer] Bielevicz says isn't unusual. Few straw purchasers are in the trade by choice, he says: "The drug users tend to be more remorseful because they're doing something they don't want to do."

What goes unsaid in this article, and is seemingly lost in much of the debate about violent crime, is the extent to which the courts routinely set aside the many overlapping laws and punishments that currently exist. This is one of the key issues that so infuriated Philadelphia chief of detectives Joe Fox when he chose the unorthodox method of writing his personal opinions in a letter to the editor of the Philadelphia newspaper to try to shed some light on these issues.

At the heart of this legislation is a creation of another Multi Jurisdictional Task Force targeting guns instead of criminals. To avoid the human element in all crime raises the specter of failure to address the real issues before it even leaves the starting line.

In addition while Pennsylvania has benefited from the current hard-working Attorney General Tom Corbett the ambiguous and ill-defined mission of this Bureau could be disastrous in the future for civil liberties. We oppose this legislation.

House Bill 1744

Our concerns with this legislation will be broken up into three separate categories.

Our first concern deals with the grading of theft offenses otherwise known as "Receiving Stolen Property". While we strongly support the prosecution of anyone who steals firearms especially those who would see them used in the commission of violent crime, we do not condone open-ended language that does not provide adequate protections against overzealous prosecution for unintentional or unknowing violations. Considering the past firearms sales protocols under previous versions of the uniform firearms act it is conceivable that this language could have a devastating impact on the average citizen. There should be some connection to the actual commission of a crime, mens rea, prior to the application of the heightened levels of punishment dictated here in.

Our next concern deals with changes from page 4 that will provide under subsection 6127 for the Attorney General to have the power to inspect and examine the inventory and records of a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer or licensed dealer "without reasonable cause or warrant". We are deeply troubled about this ambiguous language that provides enormous power to disrupt the lives and business dealings of legitimate firearms dealers with inadequate structure or application to the constitutional protections guaranteed to each citizen. Further this legislation does not provide any recourse for a dealer who may have his records removed from the premises, nor does it provide for a delineation of authority regarding the federal forms that each dealer must maintain. In other sections of the uniform firearms act the legislature has provided for mandatory procedures should a persons private property be seized by law enforcement and yet under this legislation and language gun dealers would not enjoy the same level of protection.

The last area of concern is that this legislation once again calls for another study of gun laws this time by the joint state government commission of multiple purchases of firearms. While we have every confidence in the joint state government commission this issue has already been well researched. In addition, this committee has already received extraordinarily detailed testimony that demonstrates that multiple purchase of firearms restrictions have failed in every location where they been applied. Earlier this year I testified that the National Academy of Sciences and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have both studied the majority of gun control concepts and have found them completely ineffective at impacting the criminal element or even achieving the objectives of their proponents. Today I have for the committee those very studies in the hopes that the members will find these reports of some benefit in achieving responsible public policy.

Overview

Pennsylvania has pursued a course of action legislatively that has added 76 pages to the booklet titled "Laws Relating to Guns", which now contains a total of 126 pages. It is obvious even to the layman that the addition of all of these laws has proven to be ineffective at best. In addition the very individuals that are targeted by these laws, criminals, routinely break laws as that is what criminals do. A recent ABC 2020 televised report on gun control showed a segment where they interviewed ardent career criminals from a local prison. Their response was that they didn't care what laws government passed as they would not interfere with them getting a firearm.

We would like to express to the members of this committee our deep concern over the continuing introduction of legislation that seeks to continue and strengthen the restrictions on law-abiding citizens constitutional freedoms thereby predicating them on the misdeeds of the very criminals referenced above.

It is time to focus the energy and resources of our Commonwealth on pragmatic and effective measures that will address the issues and violent crime rather than making victims of the law-abiding. In many areas of the Commonwealth overzealous law-enforcement is turning the lives upside down of the average individual who owns firearms. These are very real cases of prejudice and unfairness that reflect poorly on the traditions that we all hold dear. This legislation will not have a measurable impact on reducing crime but in the years to come will have a negative effect on the confidence of the people in a fair and responsible government.

On behalf of the organizations I represent I thank you for the opportunity to testify here today.

fyi P.T. that Kim is quoting is from Violet Law article "Over a Barrel" PAFOA post
http://www.pafoa.org/forum/pennsylva...er-barrel.html

[Brick]

Thanks for the information.

And just as a gentle reminder to all PAFOA members.

There are some 21 anti-gun bills sitting in the Judiciary Committee right now. They are all worthy of opposition and the time it would take to write an e-mail or snailmail to your Representative detailing your opposition.

A short list of these is: HB 18 through HB 25,
HB 28, HB 29, HB 30, HB 277, HB 291, HB 760, HB 957, HB 784, HB 785, SB 738, HB 1536,
HB 1633, HB 1733, HB 1746, HB 1734, HB 1744, SB 1042, SB 1043.

Use the bill search feature at the General Assembly website to read the actual bills.