Lets Change the UFA, why not?

[dogngun]

I'd really like to see the local sheriffs out of the entire process. In the late 1970's I lived in Allentown, went to see the sheriff about a handgun permit, and was turned down despite an honorable discharge from the Army in 71, a decent job and a clean police record. Was told later it was because I had long hair (got NO hair now, so I guess I'm a better person) and the sheriff didn't like that.
FWIW, the handgun I owned then was a S&W .38 Masterpiece with an 8 3/8" barrel, not the thing to conceal under your shirt.

I was born in Allentown, but this and similar incidents caused me to really hate the place, and I haven't lived there for decades.

I don't think the locals should have any say over my right to carry a firearm, period.

mark

[Statkowski]

Department of State firearms restrictions link:

http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/04...r61/s61.3.html

[gnbrotz]

I don't think the locals should have any say over my right to carry a firearm, period.

I can't speak to the laws in the 70s, but as of now, the Sheriff's do NOT have any "say" in the matter. It is all spelled out by statute. If they do not follow they statute, they can be challenged legally.

[FromMyColdDeadHands]

Can't believe i'm the first one to say this. ELIMINATE ALL provisions regarding regulation of carrying/owning/tranfering/possession etc... of firearms, Article 21 of the PA Constitution clearly states the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be questioned. Carrying a gun should not EVER be an offense, USING it improperly should be. Anytime you need a license or permit or whatever else they call it you have a privelege, not a right!!! We need to re-affirm our rights, nothing less.

[ChamberedRound]

I can't speak to the laws in the 70s, but as of now, the Sheriff's do NOT have any "say" in the matter. It is all spelled out by statute. If they do not follow they statute, they can be challenged legally.

Agreed, and I'd rather have a local Sheriff issuing permits than a figurehead appointed by the Executive or elected at the state level, as officials at the state level are more difficult to remove. Sheriffs are much easier to replace by local election if they don't abide by the law or the will of their constituents.

I do agree, however, that the clauses in the UFA which give the Sheriffs discretionary powers with respect to firearms licensing should be replaced with more concrete language. We've already seen how this ambiguous language can be abused.

[HiredGoon]

It appears though that the sheriffs do not have to answer to anyone about the procedures in place since they do things differently in almost every county.

Does PSP or attorney general have any "authority" over the sheriffs concerning the LTCF process? Or is the only way to make sure they follow the statute to challenge them in court?

[ChamberedRound]

It appears though that the sheriffs do not have to answer to anyone about the procedures in place since they do things differently in almost every county.

The issue here is that after the UFA was passed the procedures already in place with each Sheriff's Dept. were never changed to comply with the UFA. The situation is similar to the problem with municipalities which have gun ordinances on the books that predate the UFA; they were never reviewed to be in compliance, so it's business as usual. A problem, without a doubt. But at least if you don't like the Sheriff or his policies/procedures you can vote him out at the next election; this is the one reason why I believe LTCF licensing should stay with the Sheriffs, because IMHO it keeps power in the people's hands.

Does PSP or attorney general have any "authority" over the sheriffs concerning the LTCF process? Or is the only way to make sure they follow the statute to challenge them in court?

To my knowledge, the PSP has no authority over the Sheriffs, as the PSP is under the jurisdiction of the Executive Branch of government, whereas the Sheriffs are under the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Branch of government. However, I would think this means that the AG has some control over the Sheriffs, and could require them to comply with the UFA if he was so inclined.

[knight0334]

I really wonder what was the logic behind the using phrase " License To Carry Firearm".To me it seems confusing. You don't need a license to carry a firearm, only to carry concealed or in a car. The term "License to Carry a Firearm" is used all the time in the press. Sentences like "He was licensed to carry a firearm" or "The taxi driver was licensed to carry a gun" seem to pop up in the press all the time. To me this just seems to perpetuate the myth that you need some sort of license just to own a gun in Pennsylvania. As I get older and more cynical, I truly believe that what we see in the press is carefully crafted to reflect the world as the left wishes it where, rather than reality. The less a right is acknowledged, the less the people invoke it.

I really think we should start some sort of legislative initiative to streamline and tweak the UFA. The left wing grabbers have shown that they no intentions of ever stopping. They are going to continue to spew lies in the press. They are going to continue to introduce restrictive legislation time and time again. They are going to keep it up until they get an opening, then two, then three. After Ed Rendell there will be some new left wing traitor trying to subvert the constitution. They just keep coming, kind of like the Chinese in Korea.

Instead of waiting for the next wave, we should go on the offensive. We should organize all of the pro gun groups together. We should start demanding the changes we want. Instead of the anti-freedom forces trying to take away what we already have lets make them fight and spend more of George Soros' money to keep us from getting our rights defined and expanded. Lets propose some common sense gun laws of our own. Instead of crying " Don't take away my rights" lets Demand More , More , More.
The democrats in this state keep quoting some bullshit poll to claim that most Pennsylvanians want more gun control. Lets prove them wrong and show them for the liars they are.

Here is my list of changes.

1. Change the name of the "permit" to a Concealed Carry Permit. use plain english in the law.

2. State by statute "No permit is required for Open Carry"

3. Remove the sheriff's discretion to revoke without a hearing.

4. Make the permit process the same in all counties and Philadelphia. That means the same form, the same time frame, and the same requirements No more local hurdles.

5. Abolish the State Police illegal database by statute. No wiggle room

6. Make the Permit an exception to the Brady Law

7. Make the permit or license of any state valid in PA.

8 Make open carry legal (by statute) in a vehicle.

Did I forget anything?
Lets remind the democrats what Bill Clinton's gun ban cost them in 1994

OK I'll relax Now

I think for #6 to happen training has to be required to be part of the Brady Law exemption for permit holders... .....I wont go for that at all.

[ChamberedRound]

Also, to answer the OP's original question, "Let's Change the UFA, why not?", I say:

While it has some minor problems, IMHO it's a pretty damn good piece of legislation. Let's not forget the relative ease with which we can exercise our 2A rights in PA, due in part to the UFA.

[reverserboy]

I understand that New Mexico has a state law called...I think extended domain. It means your vehicle is an extension of your home. So one can OC,CC or keep a loaded gun in the glove box when in the vehicle. I'm not sure if this applies only to handguns. NM also allows OC.

If someone only OCed they would not need a carry license in NM.

In Fla I understand that if someone forces their way into a home the residents can go right to deadly force. The forced entry allows them the presumption that they are in immenant danger.

In Fla I believe there is no duty to retreat if assaulted in a public place that you have a right to be.

AND if not convicted in criminal court you cannot be sued by the creep that attacked you or his next of kin.

We need this in PA. We should look to other states for ideas. The antis seem to.

An ideal situation would be like Vermont. Anyone who is allowed to own a gun & is not involved in criminal activity can carry concealed or open,on foot or in a vehicle. Carry licenses would be issued for reciprocity with other states. This would never fly in PA but we can dream.