On the Horizon HB 1918

[C27433]

Federal law only prohibits possession of modern firearms.

...

PA's present laws then further prohibit those prohibited persons from even antique firearms. This bill would make PA's laws mirror federal law.

Okay, so let me get this straight. FOAC (Firearm Owners Against Crime) supports legislation which makes it easier for criminals to obtain firearms.

Priceless.

[knight0334]

Okay, so let me get this straight. FOAC (Firearm Owners Against Crime) supports legislation which makes it easier for criminals to obtain firearms.

Priceless.

How many gangster and thugs that you know that would pick a Pennsylvania or Hawkins rifle, or a Brown Bess, or a 1851 Navy revolver for tool of their illegal trade?

Those prohibited folks can already own such guns in most other states - can you tell when was the last time you saw news of a prohibited person using an antique firearm?

[C27433]

How many gangster and thugs that you know that would pick a Pennsylvania or Hawkins rifle, or a Brown Bess, or a 1851 Navy revolver for tool of their illegal trade?

Those prohibited folks can already own such guns in most other states - can you tell when was the last time you saw news of a prohibited person using an antique firearm?

So just because an antique firearm is unlikely to be used in the commission of a crime, it makes it worthwhile for FOAC to expend any time or effort at all on pushing for more gun rights for criminals? All the while those of us who choose to obey the law still have a hundred other issues which should come before making sure that Johnny-the-Felon can own a Kentucky Long Rifle.

Forgive me for noting the hypocrisy when an organization which calls itself Firearm Owners Against Crime makes it a point at all to include in its agenda the promotion of legislation which expands gun rights for criminals.

Don't forget, there was a time when people were in a frenzied rage that the TSA was expending resources searching old women in wheelchairs and blonde haired-blue eyed men boarding airplanes, because the real terrorists (so they thought) were middle eastern. Then one of those blonde haired-blue eyed men blew up a federal building in Norway and murdered dozens of children in cold blood.

So you can talk about it as an "unlikely" scenario as much as you want, but the point is not that it's going to happen or is in any way inevitable, but that it shouldn't even be on the agenda of a group like FOAC. They're not doing the gun community any favors by promoting this bill.

You see, everyone is quick to jump at the observation that MAIG and CeasefirePA aren't just against illegal guns and crime, but that it's just a thinly veiled cover for an overt anti-gun agenda. But I've never heard the same charge against FOAC, that it is just a cover for an overt pro-gun agenda regardless of whether or not the items on that agenda truly align with their mission statement. And yet this bill just goes to show that these groups aren't really so different in that respect.

Let prohibited persons fight for their own rights. Law abiding gun owners ought to have more important things to do. And although this bill accomplishes other things for law abiding gun owners, its expansion of gun rights for prohibited persons is enough to lose my support for it. And not only that, but the next time I contact my representative, which I do often, and who respects my opinion on gun rights, I'll be sure to let him know that this is a wolf in sheep's clothing.

[WhiteFeather]

Okay, so let me get this straight. FOAC (Firearm Owners Against Crime) supports legislation which makes it easier for criminals to obtain firearms.

Priceless.

How is this making easier or expanding gun rights for criminals?

Where are you pulling this conclusion out from, the 7 planet?

So just because an antique firearm is unlikely to be used in the commission of a crime, it makes it worthwhile for FOAC to expend any time or effort at all on pushing for more gun rights for criminals? All the while those of us who choose to obey the law still have a hundred other issues which should come before making sure that Johnny-the-Felon can own a Kentucky Long Rifle.

Forgive me for noting the hypocrisy when an organization which calls itself Firearm Owners Against Crime makes it a point at all to include in its agenda the promotion of legislation which expands gun rights for criminals.

Don't forget, there was a time when people were in a frenzied rage that the TSA was expending resources searching old women in wheelchairs and blonde haired-blue eyed men boarding airplanes, because the real terrorists (so they thought) were middle eastern. Then one of those blonde haired-blue eyed men blew up a federal building in Norway and murdered dozens of children in cold blood.

So you can talk about it as an "unlikely" scenario as much as you want, but the point is not that it's going to happen or is in any way inevitable, but that it shouldn't even be on the agenda of a group like FOAC. They're not doing the gun community any favors by promoting this bill.

You see, everyone is quick to jump at the observation that MAIG and CeasefirePA aren't just against illegal guns and crime, but that it's just a thinly veiled cover for an overt anti-gun agenda. But I've never heard the same charge against FOAC, that it is just a cover for an overt pro-gun agenda regardless of whether or not the items on that agenda truly align with their mission statement. And yet this bill just goes to show that these groups aren't really so different in that respect.

Let prohibited persons fight for their own rights. Law abiding gun owners ought to have more important things to do. And although this bill accomplishes other things for law abiding gun owners, its expansion of gun rights for prohibited persons is enough to lose my support for it. And not only that, but the next time I contact my representative, which I do often, and who respects my opinion on gun rights, I'll be sure to let him know that this is a wolf in sheep's clothing.

Do you know the federal law?
Do you know the difference between the state and federal laws?

knight0334 answered most of the question except he left out another group of people that are not criminals, just prohibited from mental health past problems or other non violent offensives.

Federal law does NOT have the added element of state law with 302 to take away your rights, just because someone in authority makes a statement with claim about a question about your mental condition.

Many people have not committed any criminal acts have never hurt anyone that are now prohibited because they sought help at a tough low point in their lives or checked a box on a form. Many are vets that suffered emotional trauma from too many tours in combat to often fall in this category.

Is it fair that a state law makes it more restrictive on people rights (non violent repeat offender criminals) than the Feds?

IF you believe in this concept, of the states being more restrictive with more aggressive firearm laws than the Feds.

I suggest you move to do everyone a favor and more to NJ or NY and tell me how that works out for you.

Other prohibited people, many never hurt anyone never turned recidivist hardened criminals

Some people did something stupid in their youth, they got caught they learned their lesson, paid the price, did their time turned their life’s around and 20 years been model citizens. You apparently don’t feel they should ever get their rights restored. Ever let them even take their children hunting with a flintlock rifle, guess its ok if they go kill deer with a cross bow. So it just easier for them to move to another state were all they have is the federal prohibition.

As to your opinion just go get a lawyer to get it straighten out, I have meet people that have been involuntary committed and have watch them spend many years and 50 thousand plus to get their rights back, as it was politics and the system that cost them dearly on "a claim". Not everyone has 5K let alone 50K plus just laying around to get their rights restored.

C27433, You have an opinion about HB 1918 is it based on Facts, with taking a appropriate amount to study both state law and federal law so you can arrived with an informed position?

-OR -

Do you just have an opinion based on what you found from grouping around in the darkest from your detail knowledge and experience with the 7 planet?


Have you contact the prime sponsor of this bill and asked your questions of what HB 1918 will and won’t do?

Have you contacted FOAC chairman and asked your questions either?

WHY NOT?

So let me understand this, you don’t have a problem with expressing your opinion on PAFOA instead, rather than going directly to the sources.

Seems like you came here with agenda without addressing your concerns first, using the proper channels available to you or anyone else to seek knowledge.

Why don’t you contact both and post both your questions and answers here on PAFOA. You don't have a problem taking the time to express your uninformed opinion. How about at least going through the motion of being fair and balanced on what the intent of this proposed law.

Prime sponsor of HB 1918
Rep Tallman wtallman@pahousegop.com

Chairman of FOAC
Kim Stolfer
activist@fyi.net


Why don't you come to the next FOAC meeting and ask your question to the FOAC chairman in person?

Make your feelings known what FOAC should be doing instead, since you know what is most important, really Pro gun and what they should work on instead.

FOAC unlike a lot of other firearm groups have public monthly meeting in which FOAC membership can still do this.

Membership drives FOAC agenda not the other way around as FOAC is all unpaid volunteers, you can even run and be on the board of directors or even be chairman, then you could decide what FOAC should be doing.

Traveling and going to meeting to asking people questions, to hold people accountable takes lots of time so does informing yourself on the complicated firearm laws, both state and federal.

IF you don’t want to do either really why should someone value your opinion.

All the while those of us who choose to obey the law still have a hundred other issues which should come before.

Have you contacted your PA Rep & Senator and asked them to sponsor anything you feel is important?

How about enlightening us C27433, about your vast knowledge of proposed legislation.

Do you have a current listing of all the gun related bills sitting right now in HBG?

Along with your position on each of those proposed bills pro or anti-gun.

here is a hint in curent HBG 2011-2012 session:

There is 60 plus in the house and 30 plus in the PA senate

IF you don't know maybe that is something you should be working on instead

[C27433]

[COLOR="blue"]
knight0334 answered most of the question except he left out another group of people that are not criminals, just prohibited from mental health past problems or other non violent offensives (<--AKA "Crimes").
Making that person.... get ready for it..... a CRIMINAL.

Federal law does NOT have the added element of state law with 302 to take away your rights, just because someone in authority makes a statement with claim about a question about your mental condition.
Then why not just open it up to these individuals?

How about you take the opportunity to clear it up, since you disagree. Does this bill or doesn't it allow these "non violent offenders" to obtain an antique firearm?

[knight0334]

So just because an antique firearm is unlikely to be used in the commission of a crime, it makes it worthwhile for FOAC to expend any time or effort at all on pushing for more gun rights for criminals? All the while those of us who choose to obey the law still have a hundred other issues which should come before making sure that Johnny-the-Felon can own a Kentucky Long Rifle.

Forgive me for noting the hypocrisy when an organization which calls itself Firearm Owners Against Crime makes it a point at all to include in its agenda the promotion of legislation which expands gun rights for criminals.

Don't forget, there was a time when people were in a frenzied rage that the TSA was expending resources searching old women in wheelchairs and blonde haired-blue eyed men boarding airplanes, because the real terrorists (so they thought) were middle eastern. Then one of those blonde haired-blue eyed men blew up a federal building in Norway and murdered dozens of children in cold blood.

So you can talk about it as an "unlikely" scenario as much as you want, but the point is not that it's going to happen or is in any way inevitable, but that it shouldn't even be on the agenda of a group like FOAC. They're not doing the gun community any favors by promoting this bill.

You see, everyone is quick to jump at the observation that MAIG and CeasefirePA aren't just against illegal guns and crime, but that it's just a thinly veiled cover for an overt anti-gun agenda. But I've never heard the same charge against FOAC, that it is just a cover for an overt pro-gun agenda regardless of whether or not the items on that agenda truly align with their mission statement. And yet this bill just goes to show that these groups aren't really so different in that respect.

Let prohibited persons fight for their own rights. Law abiding gun owners ought to have more important things to do. And although this bill accomplishes other things for law abiding gun owners, its expansion of gun rights for prohibited persons is enough to lose my support for it. And not only that, but the next time I contact my representative, which I do often, and who respects my opinion on gun rights, I'll be sure to let him know that this is a wolf in sheep's clothing.

As far as I know, I'm not a member of FOAC. I don't follow their activities. I'm not a firearm owner that advocates against crime, I am a firearm owner that advocates for gun rights.

I do know that there are folks that are prohibited that never have had and never will have a violent tendency. They are prohibited simply due to being in the wrong place and the wrong time, or for a victimless crime, or for improperly mentally evaluated, or for a misdemeanor, or for false protection order.

I do believe there are certain folks that have proven themselves untrustworthy of owning any sort of weapon. And with Due Process they should be stripped of their right to keep and bear. However just because someone is a felon or a violator of 2+ year state misdemeanors, or were not given a fail psychological evaluation(or followup later) - it doesn't mean they should be totally stripped of their rights. A person should only lose their right to keep and bear when they have absolutely proven they will likely use a weapon improperly.

The liberty of one individual is more important than the safety of the masses, because safety itself is an illusion. Without liberty we cannot have safety at all. Today's laws, both state and federal, are too restrictive on gun ownership. A person should not be stripped of their rights entirely as easily as it is possible today.