HB 2358 Amending Title 18

[-JD-]

Section 905. Grading of criminal attempt, solicitation and conspiracy.
(a) Grading.—Except as otherwise provided in this title, attempt, solicitation and conspiracy are crimes of the same grade and degree as the most serious offense which is attempted or solicited or is an object of the conspiracy.


Any conviction for criminal attempt, solicitation or conspiracy would be graded the same as the underlying offense, and any M-1 or felony is already a prohibitor under Federal law. Check the grading on each of the listed PA prohibitors.

Fair enough, but are ALL of the PA prohibitors M-1/felony graded?

If so, why are we paying for PICS?

[WhiteFeather]

Almost every gun control law in the UFA was written and enacted for the stated intended purpose as an additional means to punish criminals that choose to use firearms to aid in their actions to force their will on someone else

Prior to the invention of firearms, it was clubs, rocks, knifes, swords, bow and arrows or anything else that could be used to inflict the threat of death to force someone to obey them.

….. All of these gun control law both state & federal were sold to the public out of fear with the “hopefully” noble purpose that words written of paper will deter the evils that reside in the dark places in people hearts.

Hence the main reason for the failure of gun controls laws to ever achieve their stated intent, because laws written on paper that only address the hardware (guns) can’t quick fix the software (human element) problems why people hurt other people to get what they want from them.

Any law including gun control laws only apply to people that are willing to follow the laws for morale reasons. If that fails, the law should be used to punish criminals, sadly now it’s mostly used as a plea bargaining tool or selectively applied to force the will of government on the people for an agenda of control.

As already pointed out by GL how many redundant laws are required, before the true purpose is not to regulate criminals, but for government to be allowed to regulate the people out of fear to take our liberty’s, rights and freedoms for the illusion of security.

[BanginBonnie2]

[COLOR="Green"]

Too many people plead guilty to crimes they never committed, just because they can't afford the cost of hundreds of hours of legal time. If the government can double those costs with 2 trials, then any person can be bankrupted and convicted, regardless of the facts or law.

Hello G L,


I think with that you've told me that it's extremely easy for the Gov't to deny me / you ' Due Process ' .... they merely outspend me / you 8 ways from Sunday so that no way, shape or form will I / You get a ' Truly ' fair shake .... reasonably close ? ? ?


..... how would one sue for an ' Equal Opportunity / Equal Funding ' ?

..... why can't ' Evidence or Procedure ' be stopped at a certain threshold .... " I object 'yer Honor, my client can't afford similar (xxxxxx) and so you can't enter that unless you fund similar for him " ? ? ?


e.g. - Mr. Ung, most likely ' Well Outspent ' by Rogue Prosecutor(s)

- Duke LaCrosse players, ' Well Outspent ' by Rogue Prosecutor(s)




.... well you know, that ' Blind Gal with the Scale in her hand '

[Brick]

As promised, here's the important part of the text:

All readers are advised that in the usage of the Pa Gen'l Assembly the underlined text is being added to an existing law. So in this instance conviction of an attempted crime or conspiracy or solicitation in disqualifiying crimes, become disqualifiers also. All other disqualifiers remain in effect.

Personally I believe the state should remove all disqualifiers and depend solely on those provided under Federal Law (Gun Control Act 1968) with attendant Federal enforcement, prosecution and incarceration.

PRINTER'S NO. 3411

THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF PENNSYLVANIA
HOUSE BILL No. 2358
Session of 2010

INTRODUCED BY HARPER, BEYER, MILLER, MILNE, PAYTON, SANTARSIERO, SAYLOR, TALLMAN AND TRUE, MARCH 19, 2010
REFERRED TO COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY, MARCH 19, 2010

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 the offense of persons not to
4 possess, use, manufacture, control, sell or transfer
5 firearms.
6 The General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
7 hereby enacts as follows:
8 Section 1. Section 6105(b) of Title 18 of the Pennsylvania
9 Consolidated Statutes is amended to read:
10 § 6105. Persons not to possess, use, manufacture, control, sell
11 or transfer firearms.
12 * * *
13 (b) Enumerated offenses.--The following offenses, and the
14 attempt, conspiracy or solicitation to commit any of the
15 following offenses, shall apply to subsection (a):
16 Section 908 (relating to prohibited offensive weapons).
17 Section 911 (relating to corrupt organizations).
18 Section 912 (relating to possession of weapon on school
19 property).

[headcase]

As promised, here's the important part of the text:

All readers are advised that in the usage of the Pa Gen'l Assembly the underlined text is being added to an existing law. So in this instance conviction of an attempted crime or conspiracy or solicitation in disqualifiying crimes, become disqualifiers also. All other disqualifiers remain in effect.

Personally I believe the state should remove all disqualifiers and depend solely on those provided under Federal Law (Gun Control Act 1968) with attendant Federal enforcement, prosecution and incarceration.

Personally, I don't think the state or the fed even have the right to make anything a disqualifier. The people can prosecute you for a crime, and if you are convicted, the government is entrusted with your care during your forced separation from society. You get convicted of a crime, and your punishment includes forced incarceration, then during the time you are being incarcerated you obviously can't possess a firearm. Once you walk out the door and are again free, the government, local or federal, should not have balls to say about what rights you do or don't have. Last I checked it says so right in the federal Constitution as well as the state Constitution... right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, right to bear arms in defence of themselves and the state shall not be questioned...

They did/do not have the right to draw up the original, current, or future list of prohibitors.

[Brick]

Headcase, on a certain level I agree with you. Upon being convicted of a crime and completing your punishment, you should be released with full citizenship rights intact. But, that is not the current law of the land. Felony conviction carries certain other "citizenship penalties" or disqualifiers, possession of arms is only one of them, the right to vote is another as is qualifying for military service.

I suggest the state removing their disqualifiers as a means of forcing the feds to start enforcing the laws in an area where they have usurped authority from the state.

[headcase]

Headcase, on a certain level I agree with you. Upon being convicted of a crime and completing your punishment, you should be released with full citizenship rights intact. But, that is not the current law of the land. Felony conviction carries certain other "citizenship penalties" or disqualifiers, possession of arms is only one of them, the right to vote is another as is qualifying for military service.

I suggest the state removing their disqualifiers as a means of forcing the feds to start enforcing the laws in an area where they have usurped authority from the state.

I would argue that since no form of government established under either the state or federal Constitutions has the authority to enact or enforce such laws, they are not the law of the land. They are, in fact, simply an illegal means used to control otherwise uncontrollable persons. While actually serving a confinement penalty, access to arms would obviously present a clear and immediate danger to those tasked by the people with safeguarding and confining the prisoner. Those tasked with such a duty relinquish control of said person once the sentence is served. They have no authority to relieve anyone of any right they have, while not directly under their control.

Possession of arms is not something that one can be disqualified from. Neither is the right to choose who governs you. Military service is not a right, although it can be a duty, however one defending one's country from attack is certainly a right, but nowhere does it say one must be allowed to join others who are doing so as a group. We are endowed with certain inalienable rights, by our creator, not by those we choose to govern us, nor by our peers. So while such a creator could certainly take away those rights, our governing body most certainly may not. They have no authority to restore one to full citizenship, because they have no authority to take away one's full citizenship. You have the right to vote while incarcerated, you have the right to life while incarcerated, you have the right to pursue happiness while incarcerated, and you have the right to liberty in what you choose to do with yourself while incarcerated. You are being held apart from society because you committed a crime that deemed you worthy of being held apart for a time as punishment. If one is too dangerous to society to be allowed to be free after a reasonable amount of time spent in contemplation of one's crime, then you should be immediately executed upon conviction. To take away one's fundamental rights as a form of punishment is cruel and inhumane.

Just because we have become accustomed to and accepted these shackles, doesn't make them right or legal. The statutes supporting these accepted means of punishment are in direct violation of the supreme law of the land.


I am not saying your ideas do not have merit in the climate we live in, but just because they are called laws does not make them legal or right. This land was born from the desire to be free and under the banner of every man's liberty being sovereign. While the combination of hunger for power, apathy from the general population, the willingness to trade liberty for security, and the unwillingness to be responsible for one's own fortunes, have certainly guided us into the position we now find ourselves and eroded away the very understanding of our own freedoms, the remedy is simply to have enough people stand and say it will no longer be tolerated. How likely that is to occur, relates directly to how uncomfortable the shackles grow for people in general.

[Brick]

Headcase what you say sounds very good and I agree with your principles. So how does one assert "standing" to sue the government for review of those laws to have them declared unconstitutional? We probably both agree that any citizen should have standing to sue to protest an unconstitutional law, for no other harm than the apparent loss of rights. But, I believe legal precedent is already against us.