Continued Communication With Bryan Lentz regarding HB 2536

[GL23]

I e-mailed Bryan earlier tonight. A copy of our communication.


----- Original Message -----
From: @verizon.net>
To: Lentz, Bryan
Sent: Fri Jun 18 21:06:54 2010
Subject: Revised Bill

Bryan,
Have you completed the revised version of the bill?

Thanks,


--------------------------------------------------------------------

Lentz, Bryan wrote:
XXXXX, we will have something on Monday. We're thinking of the following criteria: you can't rely on an out of state permit if you've had a PA permit denied, revoked or you've had multiple arrests within five years for crimes of violence or drugs. What do you think?



----------------------------------------------------------------------




Bryan,
Don't you think the multiple arrests is too broad a phrase to pass muster? Would multiple arrests constitute 2,3,4, or 5? What about an arrest, ARD, and no conviction? I just can't get past this no conviction denial or revocation. Narrower language is what is needed at this time, not broader. This is solely why we are at this point. Most states have narrow and strict language for denials and revocations and this is why so many who are wrongfully denied or revoked in PA are still eligible elsewhere. Are you aware that PA issues non-resident licenses thru the mail just like Florida, with no fingerprint or training requirement whatsoever? The same process CeaseFire and others loathe, is in place right here in the Commonwealth.

A quick example going back to wrongful revocations. A resident of Franklin County who happens to carry a firearm daily went to vote a couple years ago. A PA constable happened to notice his firearm, and told him he wasn't allowed to have it in a polling place, that it was against the law. The citizen knew better and politely explained to the Constable that he was incorrect and there is no such law in PA.

He voted and then left the polling place. A week or so later the Franklin County Sheriff revoked his LTCF citing the character clause and the likely to act in a dangerous manner language. After hearing his appeal, a Common Pleas judge returned the LTCF. This appeal cost the citizen $2800. Fortunately several websites conducted fund raisers to cover these costs.

How about some language in the bill that makes the issuing authority pay the attorney fees of the citizens for revocations or denials that are overturned on appeal? This would allow attorneys to consider taking such cases on a contingency type of arrangement. If an attorney thinks there is a good chance to win the case, we would see more appeals and truly know who may be revoking or denying without good cause. Language like this could also help reign in issuing authorities who currently revoke or deny illegally.

What's troubling is that most states rely on convictions, not arrests. I am a Utah certified instructor. Utah licensing statutes contain a "moral turpitude" clause. It's an even broader brush than the character clause we have here. From what I know, moral turpitude isn't nearly abused like "character/dangerous manner" is here in PA.

I completely understand what you and your side is trying to accomplish. It's not an issue that can be compromised on in two weeks. Have you, CeaseFire, and police representatives all sat at the table with the NRA or any other groups in an attempt to draft a bill that meets everyones goals? There are many citizens that have issues with parts of the UFA. Perhaps a compromise could be reached if parts of your bill could be included in additional changes to the UFA.

The timing of all this raises eyebrows too. Some of the incidents in your fact sheet go back many years. Why so long before introducing something like this? How long after CeaseFire or the PPD approached you, did you draft this bill and present it? It doesn't seem like it was long at all. I wish I could approach an elected official with a concern, and within weeks they are presenting a bill to a committee for a vote. Please correct me on the timeline if I am incorrect.

Thanks again,

[anonymouse]

Keep up the good work! And keep us posted

I can't see this ever working as long as they prevent people denied via the character clause from using out of state licenses.

[MDJschool]

I think I may have the best idea yet:
Let's tell Lentz that the loophole can be closed in an alternate manner...by repealing 18 Pa.C.S. 6106. It will close the loophole, so his next revision should simply read that 6106 is being repealed. That's turning a bad into a good with "a bill that meets everyones goals"!

[Sleeeper]

I think I may have the best idea yet:
Let's tell Lentz that the loophole can be closed in an alternate manner...by repealing 18 Pa.C.S. 6106. It will close the loophole, so his next revision should simply read that 6106 is being repealed. That's turning a bad into a good with "a bill that meets MR.LENTZ'S AND PHILLY/ STRONG ARM SHERIFFS'S goals"!

Revised...........


Honestly i do not see this bill helping anyone except for a few sheriffs in PA along with the PPD. Either way we look at this original or revised bill it still effects citizens of PA with or without proper OOS licenses. And if whom ever tries to close a so called "loopehole" there is still going to be one found or around it unless we take away our 2A rights all together.

Something is still very fishy about the timing of this bill as well as where the originator is trying to get votes from.......... plain and simple.. look at it how you want.

[MDJschool]

Revised...........


Honestly i do not see this bill helping anyone except for a few sheriffs in PA along with the PPD. Either way we look at this original or revised bill it still effects citizens of PA with or without proper OOS licenses. And if whom ever tries to close a so called "loopehole" there is still going to be one found or around it unless we take away our 2A rights all together.

Something is still very fishy about the timing of this bill as well as where the originator is trying to get votes from.......... plain and simple.. look at it how you want.

I don't understand your enhanced version of my post. Their goal is to close the loophole. Our goal is to see our right to bear arms respected. Revising the bill to do nothing but repeal 6106 both closes the loophole and further sees our right respected. Therefore, Lentz should delete the garbage he originally put on the bill and replace it with wording that repeals 6106!

[Sleeeper]

I don't understand your enhanced version of my post. Their goal is to close the loophole. Our goal is to see our right to bear arms respected. Revising the bill to do nothing but repeal 6106 both closes the loophole and further sees our right respected. Therefore, Lentz should delete the garbage he originally put on the bill and replace it with wording that repeals 6106!

Im sorry, i misread your post, it has been a long night and i am half asleep.

[andrewjs18]

my proposal..no firearms laws..laws restrict FREEDOM!

[press1280]

This is pretty much a Philly PD issue, is it not? Maybe if they followed the rules, people wouldn't care so much about getting a FL permit.

[XD40coyote]

How about he just toss the bill instead? It's a stupid do nothing bill that won't affect a single criminal, just like every other gun control law does absolutely nothing to stop criminals. Compromise on it? My ass!

[headcase]

Soooooooo... Bryan too busy with other things to get back to you?