House Bill 2536 Offered

[Berncly]

I just got to Harrisburg, the House Judiciary Committee Meeting was canceled altogether.

Thank you IronSight for making the effort and going there in person. If I was healthy and not all beat to hell I would do the same.
Berncly-

[WhiteFeather]

So now we have another week to wait for t his nonsense?

They can play this game of table - cancel HB 2536 with all of its political theater drama for the rest of session just to keep US distracted.

Any bill can have three failed votes in this committee so they can play all kinds of games.

Also Rep Lentz needs this as a political platform for his run for higher office so he "may" be willing to work with US to address our concerns with the abuse of the LTCF issue / revoke with a re write of existing UFA instead.

So Rep Lentz can claim he "did something" for the Public Relations aspect otherwise his opponent may use our valid concerns against him in the election debates.

Elections and politics can make for strange Comprises, unfortunately for them Gun owners are NOT interested in accepting comprises when it comes to our Constitutional rights anymore.

[WhiteFeather]

gnbrotz's case is an excellent example of how this hurts us. His LTCF was revoked because he chose to exercise his right to bear arms AND his right to vote at the same time. He had to spend around $3000 to appeal the revocation.

Not everyone has $3000 to fight the Sheriff's that abuse their power. Some choose to go the cheaper route and spend less than a few hundred on an out of sstate license.

If this passed, the only option for victims of Sheriff Abuse would be an expensive appeal.


Edit: Forgive me if anything is inaccurate - I thought I recall him saying it cost around $3k.

This is the elitist “let them eat cake” attitude of government, that many have in Harrisburg and Entrenched bureaucratic positions hold when it comes to enacting MORE gun control.

It doesn’t matter if its only a hundred bucks....why should they be using the letter of the law to punish Citizens exercising their constitutional rights that have NO criminal Intent?

government breaks the law are they held to the same standard of accountability? ohh NO, they are always given a pass because its for a so called "good cause" so its acceptable then to violate the law fro them NOT us. So we take them to court, "MAYBE" Grudgingly in lots of cases we get our rights back after spending thousands of dollars, they are FREE to commit the same crime on the next Citizen.......

Where is the injustice and injury to the Citizens ever be made up, where is the punishment to those on authority to abuse the Citizen rights as repeat offenders because they are politically connected some body special.


Every position in government exists for our benefit its not the other way around. Some thing that is forgotten by them so they can have a cushie government job with a taxpayer funded retirement


All of these elitist no accountability from anyone in government people abusing their authority over US is going to end in a really nasty backlash sooner or later, I hope we never see that day.

Unfortunately it’s the way of history of the world, you will always be abused to the point that you are willing to let them abuse you without fighting back to retain your rights hence the reason that gun control rages so heavily to let them rule US without fear of the ability to say NO and mean NO way we not going to let you do this or that.

[mingomom]

I received my "form" response from Lentz's office: This is my reply -

-------------------------
Mr. Healy,
Please convey the following to Mr. Lentz.

He is mistaken to think that this bill will only apply to certain people. It will in fact apply to all law abiding citizens. Criminals do not bother to get permits or licenses legally.

Florida may have their licensing under the Dept. of Agriculture, but the people who do the licensing ARE law enforcement people who are trained and who use the NICS system to clear people before granting their non-resident licenses.

The case you cited indicated that the person in question had nine arrests. No convictions? What about innocent until proven guilty? What about the DA doing their job first? And what were the arrests for? I know several people who have been arrested for so called disorderly conduct when the only thing they did was to verbally stand up for their legal right to carry openly.

What about having Philly cops follow the law and not ADD requirements to the licensing procedure and NOT have reasonable hours for people to apply? What about holding them accountable for false arrests or revocations because they had the misfortune of being a victim to having their gun stolen while it was in their vehicle because they did not have the LTCF that is almost impossible to get in Philly unless you can afford to take two days off from work?

Our right to bear arms is a right, not a privilege as some people like to think. You have laws in place that prevent criminals from possessing other licenses – you can notify the authorities in those states of any criminal wrongdoing. The other states, however, usually follow our constitutional right to be considered innocent until proven guilty.

I will continue to fight for my right to bear arms without onerous restrictions. And for the record, I am a conservative grandmother of eight. You’d never pick me out of a crowd as one of “those” gun owners that are stereotyped as radicals. Because basically, while we are radical in our thinking (that our federal rights are due us) these days, we are actually ordinary citizens who are sick of being marginalized by the vocal minority. Because whether I carry concealed or openly, or not at all, it is MY right to do so.
----------------------

J!

[IronSight]

Well, that was an interesting day. I had a great conversation with Representative Lentz about this bill, and I got a first-hand look at the new version being drafted.

I have to give Representative Lentz some credit here, everyone's e-mails, letters, calls, etc have definitely made a huge impact, and the new draft of his bill proves it. While it still has its issues, and while I still can't support it as long as the character clauses stay as they are, the newer draft is way better than the bill as currently published now. I'll refrain from posting the details on this draft, as I do believe it will reappear as an amendment/redrafted bill quite soon and he may still make changes to it before making the new version "official".

I emphasized to him that the crux of the problem with his bill (both versions) is the potential for increased abuses of the character clauses forcing residents into expensive court challenges. We discussed this point for quite some time, and other points of opposition to the bill.

In a way, this legislation has been a positive force for us, it has focused the attention on the abuses of the law by Philly and other counties, and our points of concern really are being noticed by the Representatives. By staying active and vigilant we really do advance our points of view.

Hell, I was even able to bring up constitutional carry to Representative Lentz as part of the discussion. Granted we didn't discuss it too much, but by even just injecting it into the conversation such a thing moves one step closer to being a reality.

[dc dalton]

Well, that was an interesting day. I had a great conversation with Representative Lentz about this bill, and I got a first-hand look at the new version being drafted.

<snip>

Thanks for your time and efforts on this!

[headcase]

I also decided to respond to this:

RE: VOTE NO ON HB 2536‏
From: headcase
Sent: Tue 6/15/10 3:00 PM
To: dhealy@pahouse.net

Rep. Lentz,

Hopefully this will find it's way to you, and you will read and respond to it.

I would like the opportunity to explain where you are mistaken, and hope that, then understanding your misconceptions, you will publicly remove your backing of this bill. I will quote sections of your reply and respond to them in blue.:



"To be clear, I am not trying to mess with reciprocity at all. I am all for reciprocity and I don't have a problem with Pennsylvania residents having permits from every state in the union if they so desire or PA recognizing permits from other states as they do now."

What you propose does not technically "mess with reciprocity", but what it does do, by the tone of the rhetoric associated with the support of it, is paint states that have agreements with Pennsylvania, as accomplices in criminal activity. The angle you are taking is based upon lies and disingenuousity, whether you are aware of it or not.

"I am trying to get at a real problem with bad guys who have been denied or have had their PA permits revoked then going to Florida or other states and getting a permit to carry which the PA police then have to honor even in cases where the bad guy is a known criminal who never lived in or even visited Florida."
The ability to be approved for a permit in Florida, Utah, and other states, is based upon national criminal record checks and fingerprint identity, which this Commonwealth contributes information to. These so called "bad guys" you speak of are, in virtually every single instance, not prohibited form obtaining a permit in those states, or even here, in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. They are not prohibited by the simple fact that they have not been convicted of a prohibiting crime, and/or have been denied a Licence To Carry Firearms in Pennsylvania under unlawful reasons. As for not having ever set foot in these places, yet still being granted permits, this Commonwealth allows for, and does indeed engage in, the exact same process of Licensing individuals by mail.
"As just one example, a guy in Philly who had 9 (NINE) prior arrest was arrested in connection with a murder and he was in possession of a Florida permit."
This example, and every single other one I have seen put forth in defense of this bill, is what infuriates most of the people who oppose this piece of legislation. Whether a person has 0 (zero) arrests or 200 (two hundred) arrests, unless they have 1 (one) prohibiting conviction (C-O-N-V-I-C-T-I-O-N) or are currently prohibited due to being under an active PFA order or a prohibiting commitment to a mental health facility, they are not prohibited by law. I have personally witnessed more than one person be charged with a crime and be acquitted of any wrongdoing. It is known as due process and is derived from the doctrine of a person being innocent until proven guilty. This is the most important concept that you need to comprehend, if you wish to properly serve your constituents, and uphold your oath of office.

"These guys have figured out that they can bypass the process in PA and get a permit elsewhere."
So what you are saying is, that because the officials who have been entrusted with the duty to legally and lawfully issue Licenses To Carry Firearms in this Commonwealth are breaking the public trust and adding their own unlawful requirements to issue and revoke these LTCFs, citizens of the Commonwealth are somehow engaging in criminal behavior by legally obtaining these permits elsewhere? That can't be right, can it?
"So what happens is they either get denied in PA because they have something in their background or an open arrest (in one case a guy had an open case for illegally carrying a firearm) so they go online and apply to Florida."
I guess my interrpretation of your previous message was correct after all. You are stating, publicly, that people should have their rights violated based solely on accusations and not upon conviction in a court of law. These "something"s in their backgrounds are generally arrests and other things that are not prohibiting offenses. Sometimes the denials are for things as simple as not having a reference in the same county or for forgetting to admit to a speeding ticket. In the eyes of the law, having an arrest for murder, or carrying a firearm illegally, or any other charge, on your record, is the same as not having a record because there is no conviction, and this is one of the basic tenets of freedom and liberty that this country was founded upon. That you and your supporters don't seem to understand this, or worse, simply choose to ignore it, does not speak well for your honor or commitment to your oaths to abide by, protect, and defend, the Constitution of this Commonwealth.
"Florida permits are issued by the department of agriculture and not the law enforcement."
Florida's Department of Agriculture is actually a law enforcement entity in their state.

"Florida will issue the permit by mail to PA residents who do not live work or visit Florida EVER."
Oddly enough, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania does the exact same thing, with less strict requirements than Florida or Utah.
"So all I am trying to do is say that if you are a PA resident you cannot rely on a Florida permit if you have had a PA permit denied or revoked or if you have not at least applied for a PA permit."
You could say that in a much more beneficial way, as far as the citizens of this Commonwealth are concerned, by simply publicly demanding that local municipalities follow the current laws, and by demanding that those that overstep their authority by adding illegal requirements and arbitrarily deny LTCF applications be punished severely.
"This should eliminate the known bad guys using the Florida or other state loophole."
Since we have already established that these people are not "known bad guys" according to the Constitution or the corresponding Pa criminal statutes, it will do no such thing.
"In the meantime people can still have permits from as many states as they like and residents of other states who carry here and with whom we have reciprocity will still have the right to rely on the permit from their state as will PA residents who have not had a permit revoked or denied."
Ahh, but you leave out the necessity for Pa. residents to ave actually applied for a LTCF, which would in effect, negate reliance on an out of state permit in their case.

"We are going to hold the bill for a week to see if we can come up with a solution that allows us to keep the permit process local and still prevent known drug dealers from relying on a loophole to get an out of state permit as a get out of jail free card but not interfere in any way with law abiding citizens rights."

The permit process is not local, it is a uniform process statewide, that is administrated locally. This is another of the problems with this, and other types of legislation, you and Reps. like Youngblood constantly offer, realizing and accepting that the legislature, not the local municipalities, are the governing authority when dealing with firearm related laws. The need for this protection of the citizens by having preemption, is constantly hammered home by you fellows. And when did these "known bad guys" go from simply having arrests or doing something Philadelphia police didn't like, to becoming "drug dealers"? Normally, I would applaud your craftiness, but this is not a game. It is an assault on the rights of the citizens of this Commonwealth, by oath breakers and dishonorable men. Learn from this correspondence and choose to uphold both your honor, and your oath.



Sincerely,

What is the best way to have this letter entered into the record on 2536?

[Broncitis]

Well, that was an interesting day. I had a great conversation with Representative Lentz about this bill, and I got a first-hand look at the new version being drafted.

I have to give Representative Lentz some credit here, everyone's e-mails, letters, calls, etc have definitely made a huge impact, and the new draft of his bill proves it. While it still has its issues, and while I still can't support it as long as the character clauses stay as they are, the newer draft is way better than the bill as currently published now. I'll refrain from posting the details on this draft, as I do believe it will reappear as an amendment/redrafted bill quite soon and he may still make changes to it before making the new version "official".

I emphasized to him that the crux of the problem with his bill (both versions) is the potential for increased abuses of the character clauses forcing residents into expensive court challenges. We discussed this point for quite some time, and other points of opposition to the bill.

In a way, this legislation has been a positive force for us, it has focused the attention on the abuses of the law by Philly and other counties, and our points of concern really are being noticed by the Representatives. By staying active and vigilant we really do advance our points of view.

Hell, I was even able to bring up constitutional carry to Representative Lentz as part of the discussion. Granted we didn't discuss it too much, but by even just injecting it into the conversation such a thing moves one step closer to being a reality.

Thanks for making it down there again today! I tried to rep you, but I've got to spread it around a bit first!

[gnbrotz]

gnbrotz's case is an excellent example of how this hurts us. His LTCF was revoked because he chose to exercise his right to bear arms AND his right to vote at the same time. He had to spend around $3000 to appeal the revocation.

Not everyone has $3000 to fight the Sheriff's that abuse their power. Some choose to go the cheaper route and spend less than a few hundred on an out of sstate license.

If this passed, the only option for victims of Sheriff Abuse would be an expensive appeal.


Edit: Forgive me if anything is inaccurate - I thought I recall him saying it cost around $3k.

Actual attorney fees for my appeal were $2,461.87

[Brick]

Ironsight, thanks for making the trip!

Headcase, your response letter is great!


Just in case it is not evident to all reading this thread, today's Judiciary Committee meeting was cancelled.

It has been rescheduled as follows:

Wednesday, June 23, 2010

10:00 AM JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

HB 2576, HB 2536, HB 1956 SB 1161, and any other
business that may come before the Committee Room G50
Irvis Office