Why Doesn't this make sense? HB 898

[Brick]

I'm only going to post the the changes actually proposed under this bill instead of the entire section.

As I read this you shall be deemed to have been guilty of an offense even though you haven't been convicted? Or are they saying you are guilty of a 2nd offense if you have been tried adjudged guilty, but not yet sentenced?

§ 6111. Sale or transfer of firearms.
9 * * *
10 (h) Subsequent violation penalty.--
11 (1) A second or subsequent violation of this section
12 shall be a felony of the second degree [and shall be
13 punishable by]. A person who at the time of sentencing has
14 been convicted of another offense under this section shall be
15 sentenced to a mandatory minimum sentence of imprisonment of
16 five years.

and

26 (5) For the purposes of this subsection, a person shall
27 be deemed to have been convicted of another offense under
28 this section whether or not judgment of sentence has been
29 imposed for that violation.

See: http://www.legis.state.pa.us/CFDOCS/...r=0898&pn=0954

[MDJschool]

"Conviction" takes on various meanings throughout PA law, usually either meaning 'upon judgement of sentence' or 'upon the verdict of guilty'. What the quoted must mean is that the conviction occurs for the purpose of those provisions at the time of verdict.

Appeals of convictions are from judgment of sentence, however. I presume a verdict is necessarily vacated with a reversal of the judgement of sentence, but I couldn't actually tell you why that would be so, at the moment.

[IronSight]

For some reason I can't access the State's website right now. However if it is the bill from Rep. Toepel than it's intended to make sure that mandatory minimum sentencing is applied in cases of repeat straw-purchasing.

[Daycrawler]

Op it sounds to me like you have to have one conviction to be found guilty of a second. However mandatory minimuns are very often pleaded out!

[Brick]

26 (5) For the purposes of this subsection, a person shall
27 be deemed to have been convicted of another offense under
28 this section whether or not judgment of sentence has been
29 imposed for that violation.

Daycrawler sez:

Op it sounds to me like you have to have one conviction to be found guilty of a second. However mandatory minimuns are very often pleaded out!

I'll try to be a little more careful about what bothers me on this. If a person is arrested for straw-purchase or an illegal ftf sale, but is never prosecuted (charges dropped, plead guilty to mopery 2nd degree etc). There is no conviction or "judgement of sentence". So mandatory minimum does not apply. As it should be due process is preserved.

But, if a party is accused of straw-purchase and pleads guilty to that charge in order to get probation instead of jail, that is a conviction and on his conviction for a subsequent charge of illegal trafficking, the mandatory minimum must be applied. Again as it should be due process is preserved.

Now another party is in the process of being tried for an offense, say an illegal ftf sale of a handgun. And before that trial is complete, he is accused and indicted for another charge involving a different and separate illegal ftf sale. As of now he hasn't been convicted of either, but two trials are progressing and he is subject to the mandatory minimum in the 2nd trial because he's "deemed convicted" because of the first? Is due process preserved?

[FNG19]

As of now he hasn't been convicted of either, but two trials are progressing and he is subject to the mandatory minimum in the 2nd trial because he's "deemed convicted" because of the first? Is due process preserved?

My limited understanding is that announcement of a verdict and a hearing on sentencing can be two different events. So, one can be found guilty but still not have been sentenced. It's the gap between those two events that the clause in question is addressing.

[Brick]

For anyone interested, this is out of committee and has had its' first review on the house floor.

This was only in committee 5 days. So they can move things rapidly if it is something they want.

[-JD-]

PA Senate passed this today and it is on to Corbett ...

http://www.pahousegop.com/NewsItem.aspx?NewsID=15535

Toepel’s ‘Brad Fox Law’ Heads to Governor’s Desk


10/17/2012
HARRISBURG – Legislation that restores a significant law enforcement tool to remove illegal guns and prosecute straw purchasers is now on its way to the governor’s desk, as the Senate today unanimously passed House Bill 898, authored by Rep. Marcy Toepel (R-Montgomery).

“While I introduced this bill about and a year a half ago, it has taken on new significance due to the recent tragic events in Montgomery County. Straw purchasers significantly contribute to gun violence in Pennsylvania’s towns and cities,” said Toepel. “I am pleased my colleagues agree that this legislation is needed to better protect residents of our communities across the state.”

Although obtaining or receiving a firearm through a straw purchase is illegal in Pennsylvania, House Bill 898, known as the Brad Fox Law, would close a loophole in the current law that prevented the imposition of an enhanced penalty for second and subsequent offenses.

Multiple straw purchases are the reason why a criminal possessed multiple guns, including the one that fatally shot Plymouth Township Police Officer Brad Fox last month.

A “straw purchase” occurs when the actual buyer of a firearm uses another person, a “straw purchaser,” to execute the paperwork necessary to purchase a firearm from a federally licensed firearms dealer.

Specifically, House Bill 898 would restore a five-year minimum sentence for those convicted of making repeat straw purchases of firearms, a measure that would make Pennsylvania’s streets safer for everyone.

“This legislation will help us target those that literally put illegal guns into the hands of killers and other criminals,” said Shawn Wagner, president of Pennsylvania District Attorneys Association and district attorney of Adams County.

House Bill 898 has garnered the support of Montgomery County District Attorney Risa Vetri Ferman, as well as the Pennsylvania District Attorneys Association and the Montgomery County Police Chiefs’ Association.

“The need for this bill was most recently and tragically demonstrated by the death of Plymouth Township Police Officer Brad Fox,” said Montgomery County District Attorney Risa Vetri-Ferman. “He was killed while investigating a car crash on September 13, 2012, with a gun that was obtained from a repeat straw purchaser. His loss is felt everyday in Montgomery County, but the passage of this law is a great tribute to his memory.”

For more legislative information, visit Toepel’s website at www.RepToepel.com or her legislative Facebook page at www.Facebook.com/RepToepel.

State Representative Marcy Toepel
147th District, Pennsylvania House of Representatives
Media Contact: Lauren Whetzel
lwhetzel@pahousegop.com
717.260.6451

[FNG19]

PA Senate passed this today and it is on to Corbett ...

Note a few things about this bill:

1) It passed almost unanimously in the House and unanimously in the Senate.
2) It languished for the better part of two years after passing the House, then went through two committees and had its final vote in three days.
3) It had 22 co-sponsors in the House.
4) No amendments were voted on in either body, or in any of the committees.
5) The version passed was the original version of the bill.

[-JD-]

Note a few things about this bill:

1) It passed almost unanimously in the House and unanimously in the Senate.
2) It languished for the better part of two years after passing the House, then went through two committees and had its final vote in three days.
3) It had 22 co-sponsors in the House.
4) No amendments were voted on in either body, or in any of the committees.
5) The version passed was the original version of the bill.

True, but some perspective ...

The suddenly renewed interest is in the wake of a very high-profile killing of a police officer using a gun which seems to be sourced from a pool of 7 staw-purchased guns obtained by the shooter.

This is a pretty simple bill with a very specific scope

IMO, it has essentially no (non-criminal) constituency against it.