House Judiciary vote on Pro-Gun bills Tues 3/18!

[ChamberedRound]

Time to mobilize again!

Hey all, I got this email notification from the FOAC recently, and wanted to pass it along. There will be House Judiciary votes on two pro-gun bill this Tuesday, 3/18 at 10AM. These bills are:

HB921 - Replacing PICS with NICS
HB2011 - Legal recourse against local governments failing to comply with state preemption

I know there's been a lot of debate here at PAFOA regarding support on HB921, and I have no intention of asking anyone to support something they don't believe in. However, HB2011 could go a long way to finally, after almost 20 years, getting local government to fall into compliance with the state's preemption statute.

If you feel so inclined regarding these bills, please EMAIL, FAX, and CALL the members of the House Judiciary committee (especially CALL if one of them is YOUR district's representative) ask them to vote:

- YES with NO AMENDMENTS on either HB921, HB2011, or both
- NO on all other anti-gun bills introduced

I've attached the FOAC information below. Thanks to all, and let's get active people!

http://www.foacpac.org/action-alerts

Firearm Owners Against Crime
**Alert**

2nd Amend Pro-Gun Bills Need Your Support

Saturday, 15 March 2014

Hello ,

This coming Tuesday, March 18, the House Judiciary Committee will consider several KEY pieces of Pro-Gun legislation. At 10:00 a.m. in Room 60 East Wing, the House Judiciary Committee will finally be addressing serious issue, below, which need your support:

HB 921, (Krieger-R) would replace the Pennsylvania Instant Check System (PICS), currently used to conduct firearms background checks, with the more efficient and less costly National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).

HB 2011, (Keller-R), this legislation will strengthen Pennsylvania’s firearms preemption law by providing compensated legal recourse to challenge communities that enact or maintain gun laws in defiance of the Crimes Code. Consistency of law is essential and these local laws undermine the rights of citizens. The latest challenge was in the City of Erie case and this cost the gun owners challenging it over $43,000 dollars to force the city to obey the law. These changes would make the City pay the costs of litigation and provide standing to individuals and organizations to sue.

Amendments, especially anti-gun amendments, are always a concern and either of these bills, HB 921 or HB 2011, may be targeted with anti-gun language. The most likely threat is the language from HB 1010 that would mandate “universal” background checks. FOAC and EVERY grassroots group in PA OPPOSE this language and this concept. In fact research indicates that background checks are failing to have a measureable impact on crime reduction. Pennsylvania law requires background checks on ALL sales of firearms at licensed gun dealers AND, in addition, the private sale and transfer of ALL handguns. This language in HB 1010, if added to either bill, would expand background checks to include the private sale of ALL firearms, including rifles and shotguns. Keep in mind there is no science that advocates this change!!! Arm yourself with the facts. Go to Gun Facts and see the data behind this issue here. You can also check out this succinct examination of the ‘Failure’ of background checks by John Lott here! These laws ‘ONLY’ harm you and I, law-abiding gun owners, because criminals are NOT prosecuted for violating these laws now!

**Please contact members of the House Judiciary Committee ASAP with the following message:

Support - HB 921 & HB 2011 WITHOUT any anti-gun amendments.

Oppose – HB 1091, HB 1243, and, again, ALL anti-gun amendments using the language from these as well!

Members of the House Judiciary Committee:

Representative Ron Marsico, Chairman (R)
Phone: (717)-652-3721
Email: rmarsico@pahousegop.com

Representative Thomas Caltagirone, Democratic Chairman (D)
Phone: (717)-787-3525
Email: tcaltagi@pahouse.net
Anti-Gun

Representative Todd Stephens (R)
Phone: (717)-260-6163
Email: Tstephen@pahousegop.com
Anti-Gun

Representative Bryan Cutler (R)
Phone (717)-284-1965
Email: bcutler@pahousegop.com

Representative Glen Grell (R)
Phone: (717)-795-6091
Email: ggrell@pahousegop.com

Representative Timothy Krieger (R)
Phone: (717)-260-6146
Email: Tkrieger@pahousegop.com

Representative Sheryl Delozier (R)
Phone: (717)-761-4665
Email: Sdelozie@pahousegop.com

Representative Brian Ellis (R)
Phone: (717)-787-7686
Email: bellis@pahousegop.com

Representative Joseph Hackett (R)
Phone: (717)-260-6168
Email: jhackett@pahousegop.com

Representative Mark Keller (R)
Phone: (717)-783-1593
Email: mkeller@pahousegop.com

Representative Bernie O’Neill (R)
Phone: (717)-705-7170
Email: boneill@pahousegop.com

Representative Mike Regan (R)
Phone: (717)-432-0792
Email: mregan@pahousegop.com

Representative Todd Rock (R)
Phone: (717)-749-7384
Email: trock@pahousegop.com

Representative Rick Saccone (R)
Phone: (717)-260-6122
Email: rsaccone@pahousegop.com

Representative Marcy Toepel (R)
Phone: (717)-787-9501
Email: mtoepel@pahousegop.com

Representative Tarah Toohil (R)
Phone: 717-260-6136
Email: ttoohil@pahousegop.com

Representative Deberah Kula(D)
Phone: (717)-772-1858
Email: dkula@pahouse.net

Representative Matthew Bradford (D)
Phone: (717)-772-2572
Anti-Gun

Representatitive John Sabatina, Jr. (D)
Phone: (717)-772-4032
Anti-Gun

Representative Jesse White (D)
Phone: (717)-783-6437
Email: jwhite@pahouse.net

Representative Bryan Barbin (D)
Phone: (717)-783-1491
Email: bbarbin@pahouse.net

Representative Dom Costa (D)
Phone: (717)-783-9114
Email: dcosta@pahouse.net

Representative Madeleine Dean (D)
Phone: (717)-783-7619
Email: mdean@pahouse.net
Anti-Gun

Representative Brandon Neuman (D)
Phone: (717)-783-4834
Email: bneuman@pahouse.net

Representative Vanessa Lowery Brown (D)
Phone: (717)-783-3822
Anti-Gun


House Judiciary Committee to Vote on Gun Bills-March 18th

Tue. 18 March, 2014 10:00 AM
Location: Main Capitol, Rm. 60 - East Wing

Time: 10 AM

This coming Tuesday, March 18th, the Pennsylvania House of Representatives Judiciary Committee will be voting on firearms legislation.

HB 921 - PICS Elimination - Pro-Gun Bill - Replaces the state run PA Instant Check System (PICS) with the National Instant Check System (NICS)=Huge benefit for gun owners and the state! Oppose all amendments!!

HB 2011 - Strengthen PA Firearms Pre-emption law - will stop out of control local communities which maintain local gun laws that violate the constitution. Oppose language from HB 1010 (anti-gun background check expansion)

Other gun bills are anti-gun (HB 1091, HB 1243, HB 1498) Oppose all of these!

[IIIIIREPOIIIII]

I'm so on 921, I don't know what way i want to go on that issue!

[jthrelf]

I'm so on 921, I don't know what way i want to go on that issue!

I'm in the same boat. I really don't want to start the argument for or against HB921 because that's not the purpose of this thread, but can someone answer with a simple yes or no as to whether 921 would eliminate the record of sales database?

[WhiteFeather]

I'm so on 921, I don't know what way i want to go on that issue!

I'm in the same boat. I really don't want to start the argument for or against HB921 because that's not the purpose of this thread, but can someone answer with a simple yes or no as to whether 921 would eliminate the record of sales database?

without the debating the merits of PICS vs NICS
see thread on subject debate it there not here in this thread

http://forum.pafoa.org/pennsylvania-...er-2013-a.html


HB 921 Short answer it will NOT address the current existing ROS database maintained by PSP for many decades (some say into the 1930’s era)

However without feeding any new information with no ROS not going to the PSP it will soon become even more incomplete and inaccurate with the passage of time.
you will also save your time in filling out less paperwork without doing a ROS under NICS

The legal reason the PSP have been able to keep the ROS database from the ruling by the Supreme Court in “Allegheny County Sportsman vs. Rendell” would also be eliminated with switching to NICS. This existing ROS could be eliminated with passage of HB 792 or possibly executive action when the ROS database has no legal reason to exist.


the answer is a short NO HB 921 in current form will not eliminate the existing the Record Of Sales database held by PSP.

[djpup]

I think gunlawyer001 has a point.

Bold mine.

Every time this comes up, I feel obliged to present the other side of the facts.

I like my government to be small and local. I prefer my city to the state, I prefer my state to the federal system, I prefer the feds to the United Nations. Smaller is more responsive to the individual. So given the choice between disputing a ruling by the State Police or the FBI, through going through the Pennsylvania appeal process or using the federal courts, I prefer our local guys. It takes fewer hours and will cost less to appeal through PICS and the local courts than through the Federal court system. I can bill you less for appealing from PICS than I'll have to bill for NICS appeals. Paying less makes clients happier.

It seems like the arguments in favor of abandoning PICS and going with the "free" federal NICS (and aren't we past the point of believing that the feds ever give us anything for free?) require supplementation with red herring arguments.

Be clear on this:
We could get rid of the Record of Sale Database without getting rid of PICS.
Or we could get rid of PICS without touching the ROS Database.
Or we could keep both, or get rid of both.
Pretending that PICS and the ROS Database are inextricably linked, because both involve the Pa State Police, is wrong, like saying that we should get rid of the family refrigerator and the radio because the radio is too loud. Saying that we don't have the will to get rid of PICS unless we use the hostility felt towards the ROSD tells me that maybe we shouldn't be getting rid of PICS at all.

Yes, the PSP under the prior leadership and Rendell tried to pull something stupid with respect to completed AR-15 rifles. So? They were beaten back on that issue.

Yes, the idea of a background check is irritating, but swapping the background check that we can easily deal with, in exchange for a background check run by Obama's Justice Department, is not exactly attractive.

Yes, the ROS Database could be misused, but it's dishonest to pretend that "confiscation" is the same if police seize guns from a particular person suspected of a crime, and if the police ban all citizen ownership of guns the way the LAPD cops sent to New Orleans went house to house and seized guns. I'm in favor of losing the ROS Database, but come one, let's be honest so far as what's happened and what we'd have to do to get rid of the Database. It's not the conjoined twin of PICS, it's just one of the forms that PA law requires FFL's to send in after a sale. It could be eliminated by repealing the ROS Form statute, just delete the highlighted text:

§ 6111. Sale or transfer of firearms
. . . . (b) Duty of seller.--No licensed importer, licensed manufacturer or licensed dealer shall sell or deliver any firearm to another person, other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer or licensed collector, until the conditions of subsection (a) have been satisfied and until he has:

(1) For purposes of a firearm as defined in section 6102 (relating to definitions), obtained a completed application/record of sale from the potential buyer or transferee to be filled out in triplicate, the original copy to be sent to the Pennsylvania State Police, postmarked via first class mail, within 14 days of the sale, one copy to be retained by the licensed importer, licensed manufacturer or licensed dealer for a period of 20 years and one copy to be provided to the purchaser or transferee. The form of this application/record of sale shall be no more than one page in length and shall be promulgated by the Pennsylvania State Police and provided by the licensed importer, licensed manufacturer or licensed dealer.

We all feel anger towards gun control efforts, which are uniformly heavy-handed and ineffective. Taking the background check and handing it over to the folks who believe that they can lock up Americans without trial indefinitely, and use drones for casual surveillance, and use armed drones to kill us "under extraordinary circumstances"*, is a foolish move.

(Obama uses the word "extraordinary" as often as he uses the word "unprecedented", so saying that he will only kill us from the sky without trial or warning under "extraordinary circumstances" is no comfort at all. He thinks that his golf score is extraordinary. He thinks that a 51-47% electoral victory is a "mandate for change". He'd think that you writing a couple of angry editorials against his policies would be "extraordinary".)
__________________
Attorney Phil Kline, AKA gunlawyer001@gmail.com

When my house got destroyed in the floods of 2011, FEMA told they would pay $84,000. on damages estimated by 2 contractors and a civil engineer at $250,000, and if I did not like it I could sue them.

I talked to 2 attorneys and was told that legal fees would most likely be more than the house was worth, that I would have a small chance of winning and the feds could draw it out as long as they wanted. Wound up, had to declare bankruptcy, let the house go to foreclosure

So if this is gonna be anything like appealing a denial of carry permit, then I prefer the state system.

Remember, with President Fuckhead in power, the feds DO NOT WANT US TO HAVE GUNS.

[ChamberedRound]

I'm in the same boat. I really don't want to start the argument for or against HB921 because that's not the purpose of this thread,

Jthrelf is correct. Let me put it out there now and say:

I'd like the subject of this thread to remain focused on the feedback people are getting from the legislators, issues related to contacting them, and reports from the Capitol as the meeting takes place.

This thread is not the place to argue or debate the merits of the bills that are subject of the announcement. Explanation of said bills is OK, but there are plenty of other threads already started to debate the bills' merits. As I said earlier, I don't expect anyone to support something they don't believe in, but not supporting said legislation doesn't mean thread-crapping will be tolerated.

Thanks!

[djpup]

Jthrelf is correct. Let me put it out there now and say:

I'd like the subject of this thread to remain focused on the feedback people are getting from the legislators, issues related to contacting them, and reports from the Capitol as the meeting takes place.

This thread is not the place to argue or debate the merits of the bills that are subject of the announcement. Explanation of said bills is OK, but there are plenty of other threads already started to debate the bills' merits. As I said earlier, I don't expect anyone to support something they don't believe in, but not supporting said legislation doesn't mean thread-crapping will be tolerated.

Thanks!

Sorry Can you move or delete this post?

[Skreamz]

Hello, I have a quick question in regards to HB921 going up for vote on 3/18/14, If I have a prohibition against me to own or possess a handgun because of a 302, If this bill passes would I still be able to have the right to get my 302 record expunged? I got a hold of a State Rep in my area and I couldnt get any answer. Thank You.

[ChamberedRound]

Sorry Can you move or delete this post?

No need to move or delete, no worries. Let's just keep it to the discussion of legislative activities going forward.

[WhiteFeather]

Hello, I have a quick question in regards to HB921 going up for vote on 3/18/14, If I have a prohibition against me to own or possess a handgun because of a 302, If this bill passes would I still be able to have the right to get my 302 record expunged? I got a hold of a State Rep in my area and I couldnt get any answer. Thank You.

HB 921 shouldn't directly effect a 302 expungement requirements


However one of the other bills also being voted on 3/18/14

HB 1243 most definitely will effect a 302 expungment if passed in current worded form, making it more difficult including new requirement such as for two years to elapse before you can even file a petition in the courts for a readdress. (even if you are false accused for political reasons or a relative just wants your stuff by claiming you are crazy, you got to wait two years to file).

During that two year period, witness along with lots of information could be lost to proven your innocence. We have other concerns in given new powers to non-health care specialist decide the fate of people who are claimed to have health issues.

More emphasis should be put on helping people not trying to deny them their rights without proper hearings occurring first with people that have not demonstrated a clear harm to themselves or others

read text of HB 1243 here



HB 1243 Rep Todd Stephens - Mental Health Records for Firearms Purchases
http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/...type=B&bn=1243