HB 820 - Forbidden Acts During An Emergency

[Brick]

Though I disagree with a part of this. Here's one I'm sure we can support:

THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF PENNSYLVANIA
HOUSE BILL No. 820
Session of 2011

INTRODUCED BY GROVE, BOYD, D. COSTA, COX, CREIGHTON, CUTLER, DALEY, DENLINGER, ELLIS, FLECK, GABLER, GIBBONS, GILLEN, GINGRICH, GODSHALL, GOODMAN, HESS, HORNAMAN, HUTCHINSON, METCALFE, MILLER, MOUL, PERRY, REESE, ROAE, ROCK, SWANGER, TALLMAN AND VULAKOVICH, FEBRUARY 24, 2011

REFERRED TO COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY, FEBRUARY 24, 2011

AN ACT

1 Amending Title 18 (Crimes and Offenses) of the Pennsylvania
2 Consolidated Statutes, in firearms and other dangerous
3 articles, further providing for prohibited conduct during
4 emergency.
5 The General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
6 hereby enacts as follows:
7 Section 1. Section 6107(b) of Title 18 of the Pennsylvania
8 Consolidated Statutes is amended to read:
9 § 6107. Prohibited conduct during emergency.
10 * * *
11 (b) Seizure, taking and confiscation.--
12 (1) Except as otherwise provided under subsection (a)
13 and notwithstanding the provisions of 35 Pa.C.S. Ch. 73
14 (relating to Commonwealth services) or any other provision of
15 law to the contrary, no firearm, accessory or ammunition may
16 be seized, taken or confiscated during an emergency unless
17 the seizure, taking or confiscation would be authorized
1 absent the emergency.
2 (2) Any public officer, public employee or other person
3 who intentionally or knowingly seizes or confiscates a
4 firearm or ammunition from a person in violation of this
5 section or who orders, aids or assists such seizure or
6 confiscation commits a summary offense.
7 (3) Any person aggrieved by a violation of paragraph (1)
8 may initiate an action for appropriate relief from the public
9 official, public employee or other person who subjects the
10 person to the unlawful seizure or confiscation. The relief
11 shall include return of the firearm in the jurisdiction in
12 which the person resides or in which the firearm may be
13 found, plus reasonable attorney fees and costs.14 * * *
15 Section 2. This act shall take effect in 60 days.

Oh! there's the part I disagree with "or who orders, aids or assists such seizure or confiscation commits a summary offense." This crime should be at least a felony 3, but certainly no less than a Misdemeanor 1.

See: http://www.legis.state.pa.us/CFDOCS/...r=0820&pn=0845

[FNG19]

Here's one I'm sure we can support

I can support the idea, but not the bill. Unless there are significant penalties for violations, this law has no teeth. A summary offense? Jaywalking is a summary offense. Speeding a summary offense. My wife or daughter getting raped, kidnapped, tortured, or killed because the means to defend them was taken from me is not a summary offense. Taking the means to defend oneself during a state of emergency is tantamount to being an accessory to every crime committed for which use of deadly force is considered to be valid.

Consider this point -- and let me be clear, I am NOT advocating this course of action: If taking someone's gun during a declared state of emergency is a crime, does using deadly force to prevent it become acceptable? Somehow, I doubt that.

Now, I have no problem with the clause that states that if the confiscation would otherwise be valid, then it's still ok, with one important caveat: Until and unless there are real teeth put into effect that prevent people from confiscating your firearm unlawfully when it's not an emergency, I can't support the exception. I wouldn't put it past Philly to "preemptively confiscate" every firearm they can get their hands on and tell you to take it up with the courts when the emergency is over. By then, it's way, way too late, and the resulting offense is not at all worth the trouble. Do you really think the DA is going to charge an officer with a summary offense for confiscating a firearm during a declared state of emergency?

All of that said, I still support the idea, but I don't think the bill goes nearly far enough to protect lawful gun owners. It's all bark and no bite. As a token gesture, I appreciate it, but I can't support it or ask my representatives to do so in its current form.

I'm willing to be convinced otherwise here, as always, but "better than nothing" isn't going to cut it.

[Big Chuck]

With harsher penalties, this should be the case all the time, not just during a state of emergency.

[Brick]

All of that said, I still support the idea, but I don't think the bill goes nearly far enough to protect lawful gun owners. It's all bark and no bite. As a token gesture, I appreciate it, but I can't support it or ask my representatives to do so in its current form.

I'm willing to be convinced otherwise here, as always, but "better than nothing" isn't going to cut it.

Did you miss the last part of my post where I say:

Oh! there's the part I disagree with "or who orders, aids or assists such seizure or confiscation commits a summary offense." This crime should be at least a felony 3, but certainly no less than a Misdemeanor 1.

? Perhaps I should have said we can support if modified?

[FNG19]

Did you miss the last part of my post where I say: ? Perhaps I should have said we can support if modified?

No, I didn't miss it. I guess my wordiness got in the way. I do agree with the last part of the post. I was just explaining my perspective on the bill. I wasn't intending my response to refute what you said. Clearly, I could've expressed my intent better!

[IronSight]

Looks like some of the sponsors are trying to fake pro-gun support with a toothless law while sponsoring anti-gun legislation.

I am not going to sit by and let that go un-noticed.

[legendarylorot]

Isn't one of the enumerated purposes of a LTCF that it allows you to carry in a declared state of emergency? Essentially this bill is either redundant, or an expansion to cover all carriers, not just those with a LTCF, which would be a contradiction to existing law.

"You can't carry in a declared state of emergency without a LTCF, but if we confiscate your gun regardless, we're breaking the law".
Something doesn't add up.

[acosenza2]

Looks like some of the sponsors are trying to fake pro-gun support with a toothless law while sponsoring anti-gun legislation.

I am not going to sit by and let that go un-noticed.

That is because you are doing the work of a Patriot. Quite inspiring.

[IronSight]

That is because you are doing the work of a Patriot. Quite inspiring.

I don't do half as much as I wish I had the time for, but still, thank you.

[LBaker]

Looks like some of the sponsors are trying to fake pro-gun support with a toothless law while sponsoring anti-gun legislation.

I am not going to sit by and let that go un-noticed.

Hold on there son. The author of this bill is my Rep. and I can guarantee you he wouldn't offer any anti 2nd legislation. Don't jump to conclusions... I agree the penalty should be harsher though and will let Rep. Grove know how I feel.