Your WISH List of changes to UFA For Gun Owners benefit and protection

[WhiteFeather]

Your WISH List of changes to UFA For Gun Owners benefit and protection of your Firearm Rights.
NOV 11, 2008

Since the election is over We are going to be doing our Pro-Gun legislative planning agenda with our PG legislators and our PA coalition groups leaders through the state over the next several months. As some of you already know I volunteer my time working with Kim Stolfer and many Others volunteers activist all across the state to lobby for gun owners rights in PA.


I wish to extend a special courtesy to all of my fellow PAFOA members.
I will make sure to include some of your suggestion in the next planning session for a Pro-Gun legislation to be introduced.

I want you to post a wish list of laws to that you would like to get repealed, re wrote or new laws to try for enactment in 2009-2010 sessions.

In your post
Please include the specific section of law that you would like changed and WHY.

Include any specific language you want added or deleted and WHY

Or include any new laws or concepts that you would like to see created and WHY.

The WHY is important to show actual examples of how these laws effective you or other guns owners both pro and cons. Without an answer to the basic WHY question the legislators will not feel a need to support your concept.

Why should we enact this law?
Why is there a problem with this existing firearm law?
Why is there a need to pass this law?
WHY do we need to correct this problem?

Without a really good Why answer, it won’t happen, because Reps have to commit lots of political capital and expend their resources to enact or lobby fellow legislators for passage of your proposed bill concept. They at least should be able to answer the same possible “Why question” from one of their constitutes back home in their district if the ask also.

As reference here is an example of a WHY should be included in your post

WE got the law changed back in 2006 Act 162 (HB2563) over the game commission objections. I have to go look in my files for the draft position paper WE wrote up originally to get a sponsor, later modified it for the legislators to educate them on the valid problem, using real examples of people being attacked by animals and people while hunting.

The PGC position was basically that IF you have a handgun and LTCF / sportsman permit you were more likely to illegally poach game.

Basically our paper was archers have a totally quiet device fully capable of killing anything in PA. The PGC claimed and couldn’t prove their feeling WHY someone would more likely use a handgun to illegally kill game animals in PA when they posses a bow full capable and in more accurate “for most people” than a handgun is. They had similar claims about spot lighters, turkey hunters, muzzleloader along with every thing else they could poach this or that because the mere presences of a hand gun would make lose your morale sense of right and wrong. Yet they couldn’t prove any examples of where this occurred in any other state with similar laws…… So gun owners standing up and banding together got WE got the law changed along with several others in that session, because WE answer the WHY question all along the legislative process.

WE used the same concept answering the WHY question in our 2007-08 session with several bills that was combined in HB 1845 to answer the why is the current law a problem or why should we change the status of current laws. I hope this answers anyone WHY being part of your post

There is one caveat that I wish to add and cost.

I will go to bat for any of your valid ideas and present them for consideration to the group, but I will not accept any deadbeat parent’s ideas.

Just like you can’t just bring a child into this world and walk away from all responsibility and expect the child to develop into anything you will be proud. IF I go present your ideas and WE run with them I got to know that you will support them WHAT EVER IT TAKES, (coming to Harrisburg to directly lobby Reps, writing supporting position paper, emailing, calling Reps, etc) that’s my price for bringing your ideas to the table for consideration of action in the next upcoming session.

Also WE would not even be in this position to get PRO-GUN laws enacted into law without YOU the individual gun owners help. Our Harrisburg Legislative lobbying events shows legislators several things, that hard working Citizens are willing to take a day off without pay in lots of cases to express their views directly to them, because their firearm rights matters to them and WHY firearm rights matter to all of US so much.

WE are going back to Harrisburg next spring for another interactive legislation lobby event.
See Second Amendment Second to None Rally in Harrisburg for referance
http://forum.pafoa.org/political-138...arrisburg.html

Also no one has to include the castle doctrine for submittal, unless you have any ideas to improve the last version of HB 641.


http://acslpa.org/n-legislative/pa_p...egislation.htm
WE faced all of this anti-gun legislation and there is no indication WE will face less next session so join with US to go on offense again at our next event.


The planning sessions are usually in Dec and in Jan with the final action meeting in early Feb for events for the 2009-10 session along with submitting ideas to the group to act on so you have “some” time to come up with concise concepts for UFA changes that you will like to have.

From reading many of your post on PAFOA, some of you have some wonderful ideas and concepts, and write much better than I. So please accept my offer from another proud member of PAFOA to place your ideas on the table for consideration in the next LEGISLATIVE session for Action and Sponsorship.

Any proposed legislation has to survive several thousand people input and changes, revisions both pro & anti before it gets a chance to reach the governor desk for signature.

Bear in mind there is no guarantee that your ideas will become a law, ONLY opportunity.

IF one of the moderators wants to make this a sticky somewhere on PAFOA in the appropriate place to get lots of attention or visitor traffic, so that everyone of PAFOA has a chance to submit their idea.

One other request,
Please don't turn this into a BS / complaint thread, I will take any valid idea to the table for consideration. Please stay on topic to positive constructive changes to the UFA for all of our benefit and protection.

[The Drew]

I would like to see some push for reform of §6109. Licenses.

First, I would like to see a standardized process by which licenses are issued. We have now a truly mishmash system where the permit process differs GREATLY from county to county. This includes in some counties the need for a local police signoff sheet, letters of reference of good character, and other requirements that are all left up to sheriff discretion as to what actually constitutes an investigation into the background of a person.

Secondly, I believe there needs to be reform of the revocation process. It has been demonstrated several times in the past year or so that if you do something that your sheriff doesn't like, he has the power revoke your license to carry. The reason doesn't really matter unless you get a lawyer and spend several thousand dollars to get it back. I feel this is abuse of power and I think the legislature should specifically spell out that unless a person commits a crime, The permit may not be revoked on the grounds of character without an automatic hearing. And if that judge sides with the sheriff, the court costs can then be charged to the licensee, however if the judge finds for the licensee, the court costs are beared by the county. This is meant to discourage frivilous revocations.

[LittleRedToyota]

i'm on the same page as drew.

now that the carrying in state parks thing has been (mostly) fixed, the discretionary nature of LTCF revocations and denials should, imho, be next on the list. at a minimum, if the LTCF is reinstated (or issued after appeal), the sheriff's department should have to reimburse the LTCF holder for all costs involved in fighting the revocation/denial.

also, the character and reputation clause should be removed altogether so that the system is based on rule of law rather than opinion. if you meet an objective list of criteria, you can get an LTCF, if not, then not. simple as that.

we certainly have several cases where the character and reputation clause have been abused and law abiding citizens have been victimized by that abuse, so we should be able to come up with compelling reasons as to why.

another issue i would like to go after is the PSP sales database. i would like to see the language modified to specifically address the whole definition of a registry issue that the state supreme court used to get around the actual intent of the law. again we have examples of people's property being improperly confiscated as a result of the abuse of the sales database, so that should provide compelling reasons why.

whitefeather, i will at some point over the next week actually write up a position paper with the exact sections of the law i would like to see changed and with proposed wording...along with supporting arguments. (it will take a little time to do it right, so gimme a week or so.)

[fingers80002]

IANAL, or writer,
The above posts are what I believe need addressed.

Also, PICS, If a denial is sent, they need to provide the evidence for denial.

[billamj]

Along with the above suggestions, great work guys, I would like to see a statement of conviction in support of Pa. Const. Article 1, Section 21 and the 2nd. I know that it really wouldn't mean anything but it would sure let everyone know who stands where in the new house and senate.

[Kaos]

Castle Doctrine / Stand your ground are things I would like to see even, HB 641 pretty well covers it though.

[lildobe]

LRT and Drew have the right ideas...

If you need any help, just let me know - I'll do everything in my power to help!

[hipowr]

I can think of two things I would like to see changed.

1. I think there is still too much diversity on the procedures for LTCF's statewide. With Phila doing fingerprints, Montco and their Local PD forms, and Monroe with their tax form requirements. There should be one statewide application form and some teeth to ensure that is the only requirement imposed.

2. I think we should work on getting the LTCF as a waiver for PICS checks. There is no reason to be doing pics checks as often as we do. If you become disqualified your LTCF should be revoked. It would also facilitate FTF handgun sales in PA if we could sell to LTCF holders without going through an FFL/Sheriff. It would also take some of the burden off PICS and might cut down on the multitude of outages we seem to suffer!

These are my only real gripes about PA gun-wise. Overall, I don't have many complaints, but it would be nice to see these two happen.

later,
AJ

[fingers80002]

Castle Doctrine!!!!!!!!

[chesire17201]

I can think of two things I would like to see changed.


2. I think we should work on getting the LTCF as a waiver for PICS checks. There is no reason to be doing pics checks as often as we do. If you become disqualified your LTCF should be revoked. It would also facilitate FTF handgun sales in PA if we could sell to LTCF holders without going through an FFL/Sheriff. It would also take some of the burden off PICS and might cut down on the multitude of outages we seem to suffer!

I agree with this here, but take it one step further and follow the lead of Va. and do away with the transfer requirements for ALL private FTF sales, handguns included, there is NO requirement for this by federal law.