HB 1066 - Rep. Cutler proposes changes to licensing

[Brick]

Here's another to add to "keep your eyes open" list.

Text not available at this time see: http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/...type=B&bn=1066

Regular Session 2011-2012
House Bill 1066

Short Title: An Act amending Title 18 (Crimes and Offenses) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, in firearms and other dangerous articles, further providing for licenses.
Prime Sponsor: Representative CUTLER

[wa3ra]

He is a big castle Doctrine and 2A supporter, so this may be something good...

[WhiteFeather]

He is a big castle Doctrine and 2A supporter, so this may be something good...

Rep Cutler is a BIG supporter of our Rights, this is another one of our bills concepts to make another much needed correction to the UFA.

[FNG19]

I'm looking forward to reading this bill and seeing what it's about!

[FNG19]

Text of the bill is now available. Looks like it amends §6109(i) (Revocations of LTCF's) to provide for a hearing in the Court Of Common Pleas if the reason for revocation is everyone's favorite criterion, Character and Reputation (C&R). What's particularly interesting is that the hearing has to occur prior to revocation. Also, for C&R revocations, this bill provides for a 30 day response window.

Not bad. It's not quite as good as getting rid of the C&R, but it's a good start. At least C&R "victims" are getting due process prior to revocation rather than afterward.

[IronSight]

So what about right to counsel during such a hearing? Or at least a provision providing for the costs of hiring counsel for that hearing should the licensee prevail?

How about for those who are denied their application under that clause? Do they not also deserve more protection from the abuse of it?

And what's up with this?

If a revocation of a license to carry firearms is
based on subsection (e)(1)(i) or for good cause not otherwise
specifically enumerated under subsection (e)(1)

I was under the understanding that good cause only existed if you were being denied for one of the enumerated reasons, and that you couldn't be denied or have your license revoked for any other reason not under 18 Pa.C.S. § 6109 (e)(1)

...


(e)(1)(i) needs to be eliminated completely; this bill would reinforce that clause by suggesting that the clause actually has worth to it.

In my opinion this is a bad bill.

edit: When it comes down to a determination on a fundamental right of the citizenry, it is not the place of a judge to rule as to whether a citizen is of the necessary character or has the necessary reputation to exercise that right. Only by the means of a criminal conviction, and through proper due process, should the exercise of any citizen's rights be capable of being curtailed. This bill reinforces the sickening idea that it is proper for a judge to determine an applicant's character based on his/her own standards and not upon the objective standards of law.

[FNG19]

So what about right to counsel during such a hearing?

Do you have reason to believe that there's no right to counsel?

How about for those who are denied their application under that clause? Do they not also deserve more protection from the abuse of it?

You bring up a good point. I thought of that as well. Why not get in touch with the prime sponsor and suggest the change? It'd certainly be consistent with the intent of the bill, I'd think.

And what's up with this?

Another item to contact the sponsor about. I agree.

(e)(1)(i) needs to be eliminated completely; this bill would reinforce that clause by suggesting that the clause actually has worth to it.

I agree with it needing to go away. I disagree that it reinforces the value. IMHO, this bill acknowledges that C&R is abused like hell, and will now require a CLEO to defend his decision in front of a judge. "It's Tuesday and I felt like revoking someone" will no longer be sufficient. I'm under no illusion that this will suddenly make C&R revocations go away, but it should give the CLEO pause before revoking for indefensible reasons.

Is it perfect? Hardly. But, I think this bill is a good first step in dealing with the larger issue. Ask yourself this question: Insofar as we have a C&R clause to begin with, wouldn't you rather have the due process protections than not?

[IronSight]

Do you have reason to believe that there's no right to counsel?

I haven't seen any in regards to appeals/denials of licenses in the past, with no changes specifically providing for it I fail to see how this protects those, specifically the poor, in Philly and elsewhere from abuse and provides them with tools to defend against accusations relating to their character.

You bring up a good point. I thought of that as well. Why not get in touch with the prime sponsor and suggest the change? It'd certainly be consistent with the intent of the bill, I'd think.


Another item to contact the sponsor about. I agree.

This is something I plan on doing asap.

I agree with it needing to go away. I disagree that it reinforces the value. IMHO, this bill acknowledges that C&R is abused like hell, and will now require a CLEO to defend his decision in front of a judge. "It's Tuesday and I felt like revoking someone" will no longer be sufficient. I'm under no illusion that this will suddenly make C&R revocations go away, but it should give the CLEO pause before revoking for indefensible reasons.

Is it perfect? Hardly. But, I think this bill is a good first step in dealing with the larger issue. Ask yourself this question: Insofar as we have a C&R clause to begin with, wouldn't you rather have the due process protections than not?

I don't see this as providing real due process protections at all, but rather a half-done step in that direction. As I added to my post above, "This bill reinforces the sickening idea that it is proper for a judge to determine an applicant's character based on his/her own standards and not upon the objective standards of law."

No matter how objective a judge is supposed to be I have no doubt that the Philly courts will simply "rubber-stamp" nearly all of the revocations the PPD issues. The only true objective way to move forward is to take the C&R clause out, reinforce true objectivity and due process. Anything else simply isn't worth the time.

Not to mention the fact that if we back and pass this bill now, we put a roadblock in the way of efforts to remove the C&R clause later, because then they will argue that the court is objective enough of a standard, and they'll have more support than they do now.

We MUST eliminate C&R, any other attempts to deal with revocations under that clause are simply not good enough and steps in the wrong direction.

...

If this passes those who have licenses revoked will have only slightly better protection than they do now, but it will sideline efforts for true reform and the elimination of the character and reputation standard.

I can't support that; that is something I will stand against.

[PhillyAR]

I agree that this bill is no good and we must work to get rid of the C&R clause altogether.

It all boils down to this : what judge in his right mind is going to over rule a LEO that says someone should be revoked due to the C&R clause ?

ETA: spelling

[PhillyAR]

double tap