HB 886 - A separate act re: Firearms in Vehicles

[YosemiteSam]

I'm still looking into this. Please hold off on contacting the Representatives about this bill until we get clarification about this bill vs. HB935.

More info when I have it.

Talked to Rep. Pyles office. Both bills are Basically the same wording wise. The Format was changed in Hb 935 sec 4.

http://www.legis.state.pa.us/CFDOCS/...r=0886&pn=0942

http://www.legis.state.pa.us/CFDOCS/...r=0935&pn=1004

[YosemiteSam]

Rep. Pyle seemed to think the format in HB 935 may be easier to pass into law.


HB 886

Section 4. Prohibited acts.
The following acts are prohibited:
(1) No public or private employer may prohibit any
customer, employee or invitee from possessing any legally
owned firearm when the firearm is lawfully possessed and
locked inside or locked to a private motor vehicle in a
parking lot and when the customer, employee or invitee is
lawfully on the premises of the public or private employer.
(2) No public or private employer may violate the
privacy rights of a customer, employee or invitee by verbal
or written inquiry regarding the presence of a firearm inside
or locked to a private motor vehicle in a parking lot or by
an actual search of a private motor vehicle in a parking lot
to ascertain the presence of a firearm within the vehicle.
(3) No public or private employer may take any action
against a customer, employee or invitee based upon verbal or
written statements of any party concerning possession of a
firearm stored inside a private motor vehicle in a parking
lot for lawful purposes.
(4) A search of a private motor vehicle in the parking
lot of a public or private employer to ascertain the presence
of a firearm within the vehicle may only be conducted by onduty
law enforcement personnel, based upon due process and
must comply with constitutional protections.
(5) No public or private employer may condition
employment on:
(i) the fact that an employee or prospective
employee holds or does not hold a license for a firearm
under the laws of this Commonwealth; or
(ii) an agreement by an employee or a prospective
employee that prohibits an employee from keeping a legal
firearm locked inside or locked to a private motor
vehicle in a parking lot when the firearm is kept for
lawful purposes.
(6) No public or private employer may prohibit or
attempt to prevent any customer, employee or invitee from
entering the parking lot of the employer's place of business
because the customer's, employee's or invitee's private motor
vehicle:
(i) contains a legal firearm;
(ii) the firearm is being carried for lawful
purposes; and
(iii) the firearm is out of sight within the
customer's, employee's or invitee's private motor
vehicle.
(7) No public or private employer may terminate the
employment of or otherwise discriminate against an employee
or expel a customer or invitee for exercising the
constitutional right to keep and bear arms or for exercising
the right of self-defense as long as a firearm is not
exhibited on company property for any reason other than
lawful defensive purposes.

HB 935

Section 4. Prohibited acts.
The following acts are prohibited:
(1) No public or private employer may prohibit any
customer, employee or invitee from possessing any legally
owned firearm when the firearm is lawfully possessed and
locked inside or locked to a private motor vehicle in a
parking lot and when the customer, employee or invitee is
lawfully on the premises of the public or private employer.
(2) No public or private employer may violate the
privacy rights of a customer, employee or invitee by verbal
or written inquiry regarding the presence of a firearm inside
or locked to a private motor vehicle in a parking lot or by
an actual search of a private motor vehicle in a parking lot
to ascertain the presence of a firearm within the vehicle.
(3) No public or private employer may take any action
against a customer, employee or invitee based upon verbal or
written statements of any party concerning possession of a
firearm stored inside a private motor vehicle in a parking
lot for lawful purposes.
(4) A search of a private motor vehicle in the parking
lot of a public or private employer to ascertain the presence
of a firearm within the vehicle may only be conducted by onduty
law enforcement personnel, based upon due process and
must comply with constitutional protections.
(5) No public or private employer may consider the fact
that an employee or prospective employee holds or does not
hold a license for a firearm under 18 Pa.C.S. § 6109
(relating to licenses) unless such license is required for
employment.
(6) No public or private employer may condition
employment on an agreement by an employee or a prospective
employee that prohibits an employee from keeping a legal
firearm locked inside or locked to a private motor vehicle in
a parking lot when the firearm is kept for lawful purposes.
(7) No public or private employer may prohibit or
attempt to prevent any customer, employee or invitee from
entering the parking lot of the employer's place of business
because the customer's, employee's or invitee's private motor
vehicle:
(i) contains a legal firearm;
(ii) the firearm is being carried for lawful
purposes; and
(iii) the firearm is out of sight within the
customer's, employee's or invitee's private motor
vehicle.
(8) No public or private employer may terminate the
employment of or otherwise discriminate against an employee
or expel a customer or invitee for exercising the
constitutional right to keep and bear arms or for exercising
the right of self-defense as long as a firearm is not
exhibited on company property for any reason other than
lawful defensive purposes.

[FNG19]

Talked to Rep. Pyles office. Both bills are Basically the same wording wise. The Format was changed in Hb 935 sec 4.
(...)

Rep. Pyle seemed to think the format in HB 935 may be easier to pass into law.

Fair enough. Since that's the case, it makes sense to put our effort into HB935. Let's move conversation about this to the thread that covers HB935.

[Gangle]

Any news on this bill?

[legendarylorot]

Any news on this bill?

Last Action: Referred to JUDICIARY, March 2, 2011 [House]

Which means once the House Judiciary's done with it, at an unspecified time, it'll go the the House floor for first consideration. There are no House Judiciary meetings scheduled, acc'd to the PA Legislature's website.

[soberbyker]

Any news on this bill?

Hasn't had any movement since it was referred to Judiciary on March 2nd.

http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/...&type=B&bn=886

.

[Gangle]

Thanks guys! This would benefit quite a few people I know so I'll be keeping tabs. Feel free to post updates if you see them

[Gangle]

Hasn't had any movement since it was referred to Judiciary on March 2nd.

http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/...&type=B&bn=886

.

So is there any way that we can get this moving or are we are their mercy as to when it proceeds?

[mrjam2jab]

So is there any way that we can get this moving or are we are their mercy as to when it proceeds?

Do we have any friends in the Judiciary Committee? If not, then we need to contact all of the members to request/demand that it move for consideration.

There is a meeting on May 3 to vote on a couple bills....this isn't one of them.

[reverserboy]

Unfortunately to do so would be to ignore the most obvious way of preventing that. Just strip out 6109's character clause. That will leave the city without "discretion".

That, or at least allowing residents to apply for an LTCF if any county.

I would like to see the term "city of the first class"....stripped from the UFA.

I'll be talking about this to some elected officials in Harrisburg on May 10.

Back on topic.......Philly city government needs to be brought under control.