Alert Allegheny Residents firearm permit holders

[NineseveN]

I have personally meet with Ed Kress at over 6 political events and several other public meeting where I took the time to get involved in the political process so I could know the issuses.
We had very detailed discussions about the 2nd amendment; in my opinion Ed is PRO-GUN. Ed Kress offers a real chance to bring something that the sheriff office has not had in a long time, run it like a professional business instead of a political tool.

All of these current abuses of firearm permits have started under acting sheriff Mullen's administration ONLY read the public statement I posted as facts presented as evidence, Ed Kress personally assured me that it will stop if he is elected sheriff. In fact Ed even talked about putting satellite sheriff offices in the suburbs to make access the sheriff office more convenient for the people that the sheriff office is suppose to represent. Wow what a novel concept….. There is NO reason that permit renewals are not anything more than just an instant check to verify you that requalify for permit and pay the fee and instantly issues a new permit, Ed Kress told me this is how it should be and would be if he is elected to sheriff.

My statements involve your trust, but rather than trusting me or anyone else for that matter, I included the past history of public statement and actions taken by appointed sheriff Mullen so you can judge for yourself (as you should always do in this age of deception) who Allegheny County firearm voters better get behind and do everything possible to get elected. Its time to pick a side, it's come to that

To add yet another documented reason not to vote for Mullen's here are his views of so called assault weapons.

read entire article here
http://kdka.com/local/local_story_193165007.html
Jul 12, 2005 5:48 pm US/Eastern

Assault Weapons Putting Safety in Crosshairs?
(KDKA) Pittsburgh It's been nine months since President Bush lifted the national ban on the sale of assault weapons.

In that time, police say they've seen more and more of these deadly accurate weapons turning up in the wrong hands -- from gang members to other violent criminals.

Pittsburgh's Assistant Police Chief William Mullen says it's no coincidence. "It appears that's the reason."

"There's a lot more assault weapons in the area in districts now than ever before." -- Asst. Chief William Mullen, Pittsburgh Police

Assistant Chief Mullen says assault-type weapons have been used in three murders and have also been trained against officers themselves in some near-deadly shootouts.



Allegheny county firearm owners better get up off their butts, get into the fight, go get copies of FOAC voter guides, make copies, hand them out at gun clubs and volunteer some of their time to help get Ed Kress elected or deal with sheriff Mullen for the next several years.

Just for everyone public notice Every time some makes a post in PAFOA over the next several years and complains about sheriff Mullen's making it more difficult for firearm owners to exercise their rights. ..I am going to post this link and ask this question.

What Did You PERSONALLY DO to HELP Get Ed Kress ELECTED for SHERIFF????

NOTHING!!!!! Then Sit down, Shut Up and deal with …….. sheriff Mullen procedures then and I hope you learned a lesson the hard way, so you won't make the same mistake next time.

Most are well aware of what Mullen does, no one knows Ed Kress. You can rail on and on and on and on and on and on about how bad Mullen is, we get that, we know that, but it still doesn't answer the question, "who in the world is Ed Kress?"

You could easily substitute 'Joe Bob' for Mr. Kress, nothing here tells the voter why they should vote for Ed Kress, only why they shouldn't vote for Mullen. I know this is a strain for some of the people that are so deeply politically connected and active, but you know, you have to realize that there is a difference between getting people not to vote for someone and getting them to vote for someone else. Without a good baseline of data, which cannot solely be your opinion and a few endorsements by some so-called pro-gun organizations, people just won't vote.

The energy spent ranting and raving about what others do and do not do, would be better spent helping to pass on the knowledge and information that you learned from these 6 extensive discussions about the 2A you were privy to with Mr. Kress. Personally, I can see more than a few crotchety gun owners simply not voting out of spite because of the amount of vitriol contained in your post and the lack of clear information on Mr. Kress as a gun-owner's candidate. Sure, they'd be stupid for acting that way, but that isn't going to change what they will or will not do.

I know that it's not as glamorous as trying to ride around on a high horse because you hobnob with the suitcoats, but you know, it would be, dare I say it, effective. Trying to shame the troops into rallying around this cause doesn't work. It has never worked, it will never likely work. Gun owners are fragmented across a number of different lines, this negative tactic will only serve to push the very people you want to gather further away. For all the glorious effort you put into that, you just might have taken a few steps backwards by blowing your stack the way you did.

Do we have a problem with gun owner apathy and low voter turn out? Yes we do. Attacking those that haven't pulled their own weight according to your benchmarks on the subject will not change this. In fact, it can only hurt.

Do we have a problem with gun owners not knowing what they should know about the law, political process and our civil liberties? Yes we do. And while it might make some feel superior to others to rant and rave about the lackluster ranks of gun owners, that does nothing to change the situation for the better. Take whatever cliché you want and apply it here; you get more flies with honey than vinegar seems appropriate. If gun owners don't have that information, and you know that, then getting that information to them is a worthwhile cause. Getting them to the information is better, but you take what you can get. You’ll never get the majority of any advocacy group to work as hard as the committed fanatics, it’s never been done and it never will be because that’s human nature. What you can do is totally alienate yourself from the very people you would seek to bring in to your method of activism by acting like a political ass.



On a personal note, I've been digging around for information on Ed Kress and his RKBA stance, and it doesn't seem to be readily available. If, as a candidate, he can't get his message out to gun owners, and our choices are to either seek him out so that he can get our support or relying on someone as his emissary who provides no direct information on the candidate himself, then things don't really bode well now do they? I no longer live in that county, but for those that do live there, I can see why they'd be hesitant to even bother voting if they don't know what they're getting. This whole notion of voting against the other guy is starting to fail in some circles, candidates are going to have to start doing better than that. However, Mr. Kress isn't exactly a political old salt, so I'm not personally faulting him, but if he loses the election, we'll, he's the one campaigning, so the loss is on him, not those that he failed to inspire to vote for him. I personally hope he wins and that he's the best thing that's ever happened to the office or Sheriff in Allegheny county, but who knows how likely that is?

It does us little to no good to elect someone that's a halfway RKBA supporter, where some things get better and others get worse, that's not progress, it's maintaining the overall status quo while putting a band aid on a bullet hole. The do-nothing gun owners will never act until things get bad enough for them, so some would opine that if we can't get someone perfect (or near), perhaps we need to leave things as they are until they get bad enough to get the attention of the do-nothings.

[LittleRedToyota]

in this particular case, i will vote for whoever the republican is who is running against mullen.

normally, i do not do that, but, imho, mullen is as bad as it can possibly get...and a republican is not likely to be as anti as mullen is.

when it comes to sheriff, i vote based on two criteria:

1. does he respect the 2nd amendment?

2. does he respect rule of law?

i know that, in mullen's case, the answer to both questions is an emphatic "no".

i don't really know the answers for kress. however, i would bet a dollar to a donut that he is not as bad as mullen (especially after reading his reply to a poster above). and, in this rare case, even if kress is not who i actually would want to be sheriff, i will still vote for him in order to effectively vote against mullen.

normally, i am the first guy to rail against the philosophy of voting for the lesser of two evils, but, in the case, i would make an exception. (i'm not saying kress qualifies as a "lesser evil" instead of something good...i just don't know enough about him to determine that...but, either way, i'm voting for him.)

now, if our system were set up such that you could actually vote against someone, then i would just plain vote against mullen without voting for anyone...but (unfortunately, imho) that ain't the way it works.

go ahead and flame me for suggesting one vote for the lesser of two evils...i deserve it and will take it. but, i feel i must do what i can to kick a sheriff who knowingly places an incorrect statement about the legality of carrying in non-secure areas of airports on the back of LTCFs he issues out of office...and voting for the republican candidate will more effectively do that than writing in, say, damon brown (which is what i would normally do).

i feel like i need to take a shower...

[NineseveN]

in this particular case, i will vote for whoever the republican is who is running against mullen.

normally, i do not do that, but, imho, mullen is as bad as it can possibly get...and a republican is not likely to be as anti as mullen is.

when it comes to sheriff, i vote based on two criteria:

1. does he respect the 2nd amendment?

2. does he respect rule of law?

i know that, in mullen's case, the answer to both questions is an emphatic "no".

i don't really know the answers for kress. however, i would bet a dollar to a donut that he is not as bad as mullen (especially after reading his reply to a poster above). and, in this rare case, even if kress is not who i actually would want to be sheriff, i will still vote for him in order to effectively vote against mullen.

normally, i am the first guy to rail against the philosophy of voting for the lesser of two evils, but, in the case, i would make an exception. (i'm not saying kress qualifies as a "lesser evil" instead of something good...i just don't know enough about him to determine that...but, either way, i'm voting for him.)

now, if our system were set up such that you could actually vote against someone, then i would just plain vote against mullen without voting for anyone...but (unfortunately, imho) that ain't the way it works.

go ahead and flame me for suggesting one vote for the lesser of two evils...i deserve it and will take it. but, i feel i must do what i can to kick a sheriff who knowingly places an incorrect statement about the legality of carrying in non-secure areas of airports on the back of LTCFs he issues out of office...and voting for the republican candidate will more effectively do that than writing in, say, damon brown (which is what i would normally do).

i feel like i need to take a shower...

I don't blame you for voting the way you say you will if it's down to only Mullen and Kress, because that's your choice, you've made it and no one should chide you for it. You're taking a gamble, but in all honesty, as bad as Mullen is, it's a pretty safe bet. The sheer fact that Mullen seems to be against the election process for Sheriff should be enough. I'd also add in that Kress' thoughts on how to handle Sheriff's sales and foreclosures is a HUGE bright spot for him that might compel me to vote for him too if I were in a position to (see here). He's a real estate attorney, so I think his ideas there would be a very important thing to consider.

I still wish I knew what his 2A views were...

[jbacharach]

I am posting this on behalf of Bill Mullen. I am not just posting something that I have been told by his campaign. I am Sheriff Mullen's, Solicitor and I have personal knowledge of the facts presented by Sheriff Mullen in this post.


Allow me to respond to Alert Allegheny Residents firearm permit holders, regarding my position on permits to carry firearms in Allegheny County.

First and foremost, let me be absolutely clear that I fully support the Second Amendment and the rights of all law-abiding citizens to carry a firearm. The Sheriff’s Office has the responsibility, however, of ensuring that individuals receiving a license to carry a concealed firearm are not a threat to our citizens or the communities where they live and work.

Recently, our office, while checking firearm applicants for criminal records, identified an individual applying for a permit who was on the FBI terrorist watch list and who had made false statements on the application.

In these threatening times, it has become necessary for Sheriff Offices to conduct checks on firearm permit applicants utilizing the computer technology now available to law enforcement, so that individuals like the one I have just described do not receive a firearms permit. To do less would be irresponsible.

Regrettably, It is true that the firearms unit of the Allegheny County Sheriff’s Office is no longer operating on Saturdays. Unfortunately, in these difficult fiscal times, our office must operate under an extremely tight budget, and we no longer are able to pay the overtime associated for providing this service. The office is, however, exploring the prospect of operating the firearms unit on some evenings or Saturdays each month in 2008 to accommodate those who are not able to make application during normal business hours.

The Sheriff’s Office also plans to make applications available online to save firearm permit holders time, and make the service more convenient. It should also be noted that although state law allows for permits to take up to 45 days to be issued, on average our office regularly issues permits within a two-week period.

It is interesting that my critics do not make known the fact that the Allegheny County Sheriff’s Office has already issued 9,248 firearm permits this year, compared to 7,804 in all of 2006, and 8,743 in 2005; and rest assured the office will continue to draw on technology to enable us to streamline the process and at the same time make it more effective.

I invite and encourage your comments on this, or any other issue, of importance to your membership. Please contact me at mullenforsheriff@hotmail.com or at 412-563-2980.


BILL MULLEN, SHERIFF
County of Allegheny

[NineseveN]

I am posting this on behalf of Bill Mullen. I am not just posting something that I have been told by his campaign. I am Sheriff Mullen's, Solicitor and I have personal knowledge of the facts presented by Sheriff Mullen in this post.

Thank you for joining and presenting the statement you have. Whether or not we agree, the information is appreciated.

Allow me to respond to Alert Allegheny Residents firearm permit holders, regarding my position on permits to carry firearms in Allegheny County.

First and foremost, let me be absolutely clear that I fully support the Second Amendment and the rights of all law-abiding citizens to carry a firearm. The Sheriff’s Office has the responsibility, however, of ensuring that individuals receiving a license to carry a concealed firearm are not a threat to our citizens or the communities where they live and work.

Recently, our office, while checking firearm applicants for criminal records, identified an individual applying for a permit who was on the FBI terrorist watch list and who had made false statements on the application.

In these threatening times, it has become is necessary for Sheriff Offices to conduct checks on firearm permit applicants utilizing the computer technology now available to law enforcement, so that individuals like the one I have just described do not receive a firearms permit. To do less would be irresponsible.

“I just want to make it more difficult to get a gun in Allegheny County," said acting Sheriff William Mullen” (source: http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pitt.../s_479391.html)

I spent some time in that office with the permit process in 2004. Under Defazio, I was approved in 15 minutes and out the door with my permit in hand (renewals took/take the same amount of time as the same things are involved). What has changed since 2004 that requires 20-45 days? The federal check to buy a firearm takes under 5 minutes in most cases. The PA permit in Allegheny county takes 20-45 days. It’s a permit to carry, not a suitcase nuke. A real terrorist, who wanted to cause damage, wouldn’t worry about getting a permit. Did the 9/11 hijackers let the fact that they never obtained their pilot’s license stop them from flying planes into buildings? I find it highly dubious that a true terrorist capable of danger applied for a permit, it’s nonsensical. However, even if that did indeed happen (you didn’t say whether or not he’s been convicted of any crime or the details of his false statements), to paraphrase Benjamin Franklin, those would give up essential liberty for safety, deserve neither.

If not having a permit truly impacted violent crime, then we wouldn’t really have violent crime, now would we? How would all of those 2-time felon gangbangers carry their guns without a permit? The entire permit system is a revenue generator, nothing more. It doesn’t stop the truly violent criminals from carrying, it only serves to annoy the law-abiding while the Sheriff offices pull in the cash.

It should also be noted that although state law allows for permits to take up to 45 days to be issued, on average our office regularly issues permits within a two-week period.

…yeah, 2 weeks (though I’d like to see proof of that considering the accounts I’ve read on this site), 2 weeks is at least a 134300% increase from what it was under DeFazio. Yes, you read that right, a more than one-hundred and thirty-four thousand percent increase. I’m sorry, but that’s unacceptable. The NICS check takes 15 minutes at most to permit or deny the purchase of a gun (aside from rare problematic occurrences of course). What could you possibly do in the extra 20,145 minutes that would truly mean the difference between life and death? Personally, I think the permit system is ridiculous and would rather see it die than improved (though, that’s out of the control of the Sheriff of course).

[Atomic Dog]

Thank you for posting that information for the forum, I am sure we all appreciate the connection.

However, I do have to agree with NineSeven on this issue. Even with more stringent background checks and budget limitations this process could be completed in one visit for the majority of applicants. Forcing honest firearms owners to make two trips, pay for overpriced down-town parking, and possibly take the day off work to accommodate the limited schedule just does not seem to be a good effort with the only limitations being a slightly smaller budget and ONE guy that tried to fraud the system.

~Brian

[Hawk]

I just renewed my permit last week on the 17th, took an hour off work (unpaid) drove downtown, paid for parking, and spent 5 minutes in the office, and I'll have to do it again in 14-45 days?. I'll let you guys know if I get the post card in 2 weeks. BTW, this is my 4th time I've renewed and the first time I had to go through this bull.

Hawk,

[Emptymag]

NineseveN,
I would like to give you a rep point for your response to Mr jbacharach, but I was unable to do so at this time.

I'm not able to convey my thoughts as eloquently(hey, that was a big word!)as you, but as I read jbacharach's "post", it read a lot like "blah, blah, blah... tough decisions... blah, blah... ensure the public safety... blah, blah... greater good... blah, blah...

...It is interesting that my critics do not make known the fact that the Allegheny County Sheriff’s Office has already issued 9,248 firearm permits this year, compared to 7,804 in all of 2006, and 8,743 in 2005; and rest assured the office will continue to draw on technology to enable us to streamline the process and at the same time make it more effective.
...

And your point is?
jbacharach, more permits(It's a License to Carry Firearms, by the way)issued in NO way indicates that you, the sheriff, or Santa Clause is friendly to firearm owners in Allegheny county. The numbers quite simply indicate that more honest people are applying. Nothing more.

The increase in numbers says nothing about the inconvenience, cost, and aggravation imposed upon decent people who wish to follow the law. The long wait for a "permit" could actually put decent people at risk. Criminals don't give a damn about legally carrying a firearm... they do it on a daily basis, and nothing is done about it. Nothing.
The thing is... PA is a "shall issue" state. Apply. Clear the background check. Receive LTCF.
Why is this such a difficult concept? I'm not a criminal. Give me my "permit" and let me be on my way.

...In these threatening times, it has become necessary for Sheriff Offices to conduct checks on firearm permit applicants utilizing the computer technology now available to law enforcement, so that individuals like the one I have just described do not receive a firearms permit. To do less would be irresponsible.
...

That one made me chuckle. "threatening times" LOL!
I guess that's a play on the "fear of terrorists" that works so VERY well on the ignorant public at large.(sheep)
That's the wrong speech for this forum... we're a bit more intelligent than that.
Oh, my head hurts from trying to wrap my brain around the reason a terrorist would want a "permit" to carry a firearm that may be used to commit a crime! "OK, you got me. But looky, I have a PERMIT for this, officer!"
Puh-leeze!

jbacharach, we'd appreciate your efforts in getting Mr. Mullen to work on OUR behalf a little more and leave the political "speeches" for the media. (They eat that crap up!)

~EM

[The_War_Wagon]

You ain't tellin' me nothin' I don't ALREADY know about 'Toad' Mullen. I'd vote for J. Fred Muggs over Mullen at THIS point!!!

Bob

[LittleRedToyota]

I am posting this on behalf of Bill Mullen. I am not just posting something that I have been told by his campaign. I am Sheriff Mullen's, Solicitor and I have personal knowledge of the facts presented by Sheriff Mullen in this post.

thank you for posting.

First and foremost, let me be absolutely clear that I fully support the Second Amendment

it is not possible to fully support the 2nd amendment and an "assault weapon" ban at the same time.

the 2nd amendment was put in place specifically to ensure the right of the people (btw, the "militia" is defined by federal law as the vast majority of adult males) to keep and bear arms for the purpose of defending the country (against foreign invasion as well as tyrannical government). the arms referred to are those used at any given point in time by militiamen and, in today's world, soldiers (the founding fathers were opposed to maintaining standing armies in peace time...so there were no soldiers during peacetime at that point in history).

so, the 2nd amendment, applied today, is actually referring not only to military style semi-automatic rifles ("assault weapons") but true select-fire assault rifles as well.

(if you would like historical documentation if the above, let me know, and i will provide it.)

thus, fully supporting the second amendment and supporting an "assault weapon" ban are mutually exclusive.

it certainly seems from his quotes as cited in the media that mr. mullen supports an assault weapons ban. is that not the case?

The Sheriff’s Office also plans to make applications available online to save firearm permit holders time, and make the service more convenient.

that sounds good. thank you.

i have two other questions for you or mr. mullen:

1. how many people who were issued LTCFs when it was done on the spot in 15 minutes later committed a crime with their carry weapon?

2. why has mr. mullen instituted the policy of stating, on the back of issued LTCFs, that it is illegal to carry in airports?

surely our sheriff realizes it is only illegal (as per federal law) to carry in secure areas of airports (i.e., beyond the security checkpoints).

perhaps he is referring to the county ordinance against carry on airport property, but surely he realizes that ordinance is rendered null and void by the pre-emption clause in the PA UFA.

so, why does he state otherwise on the back of LTCFs?