"Castle Doctrine" News

[Sebastian]

Sorry to cross post, but I thought this would be of some interest to folks here:

There’s a bill coming up for vote in Pennsylvania, known as House Bill 1845, which increases the penalty for possessing a firearm with an altered or obliterated serial number from a first degree misdemeanor to a second degree felony (underlined portions of a bill are parts being changed. Non underlined parts are part of the existing law).

Now, the important part for gun owners is what’s planning to be amended to this bill. I’m hearing there are plans to ammend the “Castle Doctrine” provision, as well as a provision that will make possession of a Pennsylvania License to Carry Firearms a substitute for the PICS check. These amendments are sponsored by State Representatives Steven Cappelli (R- 83) and Richard Stevenson (R-8).

But there is a danger lurking. State Representative David Levdansky (D-39) has filed an amendment for the “victimized twice” provision that enacts criminal penalties for failure to report a lost or stolen firearm. It’s important to call your state representatives and ask them to support the Stevenson and Cappelli amendments, while opposing the Levdansky amendment. Getting HB 1845 to come out clean depends on us, so let’s get to work.

So it looks as if Castle Doctrine is moving again. I wasn't aware having LCTF be a PICS replacement was back on the agenda either, but apparently it is. Hopefully we can stop the "victimized twice" bill from getting tacked on.

[God's Country]

Sorry to cross post, but I thought this would be of some interest to folks here:

There’s a bill coming up for vote in Pennsylvania, known as House Bill 1845, which increases the penalty for possessing a firearm with an altered or obliterated serial number from a first degree misdemeanor to a second degree felony (underlined portions of a bill are parts being changed. Non underlined parts are part of the existing law).

Now, the important part for gun owners is what’s planning to be amended to this bill. I’m hearing there are plans to ammend the “Castle Doctrine” provision, as well as a provision that will make possession of a Pennsylvania License to Carry Firearms a substitute for the PICS check. These amendments are sponsored by State Representatives Steven Cappelli (R- 83) and Richard Stevenson (R-8).

But there is a danger lurking. State Representative David Levdansky (D-39) has filed an amendment for the “victimized twice” provision that enacts criminal penalties for failure to report a lost or stolen firearm. It’s important to call your state representatives and ask them to support the Stevenson and Cappelli amendments, while opposing the Levdansky amendment. Getting HB 1845 to come out clean depends on us, so let’s get to work.

So it looks as if Castle Doctrine is moving again. I wasn't aware having LCTF be a PICS replacement was back on the agenda either, but apparently it is. Hopefully we can stop the "victimized twice" bill from getting tacked on.

As far as the LTCF/PIC's legislation I assume it was grabbed from HB 1029
which was aimed to accomplish just that.

I don't support the victimized twice provision, but I don't predict this bill passing without that compromise added, so I don't have much hope for it overall. I hope there is enough support without it. Any input on that angle?

[Sebastian]

I don't support the victimized twice provision, but I don't predict this bill passing without that compromise added, so I don't have much hope for it overall. I hope there is enough support without it. Any input on that angle?

I'm hearing concern about the possibility, but I'm guessing they feel pretty good about being able to make it come out clean. Even if it gets attached in the house, it can always be stripped out in the senate. It's always a risk if you try to pass a pro-gun law that some boneheaded politician is going to come along and try to attach a "compromise" to it.

To my mind the increasing of the penalties for defacing a serial number is already compromise enough. That's one of those things that actually does pretty much only affect criminals.

[ChamberedRound]

What the "Victimized Twice" amendment entail exactly? First I'm hearing of it...

[Sebastian]

Requires you to report a lost or stolen firearm to police. Depending on how it ends up being worded, there's a lot of room for malfeasance on the part of the authorities.

In states where this has passed, if it's one count, meaning you failed to report one gun, it's a summary offense, which is basically a fine. The second count can get you a felony conviction.

In most states, the language is "must be reported within 48 hours of when the actor knows or should have known of the theft or missing firearm." The latter part is the real problem. Ignorance of the law is no excuse either, so if someone didn't know this was a requirement, they could end up facing a felony charge if the had a rifle and pistol stolen from them.

[Damage control]

Requires you to report a lost or stolen firearm to police. Depending on how it ends up being worded, there's a lot of room for malfeasance on the part of the authorities.

In states where this has passed, if it's one count, meaning you failed to report one gun, it's a summary offense, which is basically a fine. The second count can get you a felony conviction.

In most states, the language is "must be reported within 48 hours of when the actor knows or should have known of the theft or missing firearm." The latter part is the real problem. Ignorance of the law is no excuse either, so if someone didn't know this was a requirement, they could end up facing a felony charge if the had a rifle and pistol stolen from them.

Its amazing being considered a felon for being a victim......unbelievable!


DC

[Sebastian]

My real concern is gun owners who might have a pistol or two in the house that they maybe take out once a year, and having this go missing during a burglary, that they fail to mention to police because they didn't think to check on it to see if it was missing. If that gun later shows up in a crime, I don't want a county DA being able to argue "Well, he was burglarized, he failed to report two guns he should have known were stolen. Throw the book at him!"

The law is meant to target straw purchasers who sell their guns and report them to the police as stolen when the police show up to ask about a crime their gun was involved in. They want a charge that they can throw at these guys without having to prove all the elements of straw purchasing. It seems to me that we shouldn't be giving law enforcement tools to be able to railroad people because clearly we know they are guilty of something, but we can't prove all the elements of straw purchasing. Anything powerful enough to use against the guilty can and probably will be used against the innocent.

[God's Country]

The other issue I have with this legislation is its potential to be used many years down the road as a tool to keep gun owners (particularly handguns)
from being able to "hide" their handguns should certain models ever become banned from ownership. We already know there is an illegal registry of handgun purchases being maintained by the PSP. Should it ever come to a point in our future where certain guns must be turned in this law removes any possibility of saying they were "stolen" because you just became a felon by not reporting them. Granted this is a bit out there and purely speculative, but it's always the unintended aspects of such measures that concern me.

I don't generally concern myself with outright gun grab scenarios, but I see no point in making it easy should it come to that.

[Sebastian]

The other issue I have with this legislation is its potential to be used many years down the road as a tool to keep gun owners (particularly handguns)
from being able to "hide" their handguns should certain models ever become banned from ownership. We already know there is an illegal registry of handgun purchases being maintained by the PSP. Should it ever come to a point in our future where certain guns must be turned in this law removes any possibility of saying they were "stolen" because you just became a felon by not reporting them. Granted this is a bit out there and purely speculative, but it's always the unintended aspects of such measures that concern me.

I don't generally concern myself with outright gun grab scenarios, but I see no point in making it easy should it come to that.

It's a legitimate concern. Of course, you could always say all your firearms were stolen as soon as they pass the ban. But then they'll nail you for filing a false police report if you're ever caught.

[ChamberedRound]

The law is meant to target straw purchasers who sell their guns and report them to the police as stolen when the police show up to ask about a crime their gun was involved in. They want a charge that they can throw at these guys without having to prove all the elements of straw purchasing. It seems to me that we shouldn't be giving law enforcement tools to be able to railroad people because clearly we know they are guilty of something, but we can't prove all the elements of straw purchasing. Anything powerful enough to use against the guilty can and probably will be used against the innocent.

Agreed. This law sure seems to be designed to reduce the burden of proof.