Changes to License Fees HB 1153

[Brick]

Makes a $25 flat fee for LTCF statewide. No added fees allowed (if I read this right). Note there is more than I show here dealing with the distribution of funds already in state coffers.

See the complete bill at: http://www.legis.state.pa.us/CFDOCS/...r=1153&pn=1255

THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF PENNSYLVANIA
HOUSE BILL No. 1153
Session of 2011

INTRODUCED BY DAY, PICKETT, BOYD, CLYMER, D. COSTA, DEASY, GROVE, HORNAMAN, KNOWLES, KORTZ, MILLER, MURT, READSHAW, REICHLEY, SONNEY AND SWANGER, MARCH 21, 2011

REFERRED TO COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY, MARCH 21, 2011

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 license fees.
4 The General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
5 hereby enacts as follows:
6 Section 1. Section 6109(h) of Title 18 of the Pennsylvania
7 Consolidated Statutes is amended to read:
8 § 6109. Licenses.
9 * * *
10 (h) Fee.--
11 (1) [In addition to fees described in paragraphs (2)(ii)
12 and (3), the fee for a license to carry a firearm is $19.
13 This includes] Except as otherwise provided in subsection
14 (m.1), the total fee for a license to carry a firearm shall
15 be $25. This fee shall include all of the following:
16 (i) A renewal notice processing fee of $1.50.
17 (ii) [An administrative fee of $5 under section
18 14(2) of] Any fee under the act of July 6, 1984 (P.L.614,
1 No.127), known as the Sheriff Fee Act.
2 (iii) The fees described in paragraphs (2)(ii),
3 (2.1) and (3).

[IronSight]

(iv) No grant shall be awarded under this paragraph to a sheriff who:
(A) except as otherwise provided in subsection (m.1), sells or attempts to sell a license to carry a firearm for a fee in excess of, or lower than, $25;
(B) fails to send applications for renewal as provided in subsection (f)(2); or
(C) uses an application form other than the uniform application prescribed by the Pennsylvania State Police pursuant to subsection (c).

This bill is a direct consequence of the work done by PAFOA members, notably those who contributed research and information here: http://forum.pafoa.org/concealed-ope...page-23-a.html

It's an attempt to use a grant system to reward Sheriffs who apply the law correctly, and to give an incentive to those who do not to comply with the law. Please call/fax/e-mail/write the members of the judiciary to support this measure.

Edit to add: The organizations affected by this are already pushing to keep the fee at $25, but they don't want the checks on accountability this bill would impose. It's important that we make our voices clear on the fact that accountability is sorely lacking, and desperately needed.

2nd edit: Also, if your representative is not a co-sponsor of this measure, call them and urge them to become one.

[FNG19]

It's an attempt to use a grant system to reward Sheriffs who apply the law correctly, and to give an incentive to those who do not to comply with the law.

Huh. So they're going to use misappropriated money to incentivize the people who misappropriated it to stop misappropriating it, and to comply with the laws that they're already sworn to uphold. And, we're going to rely on... who, exactly, to enforce this? Who is going to represent our interests in the accountability process? Other than not giving sheriffs money they already aren't getting now and thus won't miss if they don't get it anyway, what kind of teeth are in this bill?

Instead of keeping the fee at $25 and repurposing the $5 that was marked for the modernization fund (IIRC), why not:

1) just lower the fee to $20 (20% reduction), or
2) increase the LTCF expiration by a year (20% increase)

Please tell me I'm wrong about this. I want to be wrong. I really, really want to be wrong about it. It sounds to me, though, like we're using our own money, taken from us unfairly, to convince the people sworn to uphold the law to stop breaking it, and we're doing it at legislative gunpoint.

What am I missing here?

[IronSight]

Huh. So they're going to use misappropriated money to incentivize the people who misappropriated it to stop misappropriating it, and to comply with the laws that they're already sworn to uphold. And, we're going to rely on... who, exactly, to enforce this? Who is going to represent our interests in the accountability process? Other than not giving sheriffs money they already aren't getting now and thus won't miss if they don't get it anyway, what kind of teeth are in this bill?

Instead of keeping the fee at $25 and repurposing the $5 that was marked for the modernization fund (IIRC), why not:

1) just lower the fee to $20 (20% reduction), or
2) increase the LTCF expiration by a year (20% increase)

Please tell me I'm wrong about this. I want to be wrong. I really, really want to be wrong about it. It sounds to me, though, like we're using our own money, taken from us unfairly, to convince the people sworn to uphold the law to stop breaking it, and we're doing it at legislative gunpoint.

What am I missing here?

When I first saw the language of this bill (which was quite some time ago, I must say) I had the same concerns you do. Here's what I've come to understand.

This bill would reward all the Sheriffs that are complying with the law, which is the majority of them, without increasing the fee above our current standard of $25. The rest of the Sheriffs who aren't following the law would be stuck without any proceeds under this program and it would be on record with the PCCD (and the legislature) that they aren't in compliance with correct procedures for issuing licenses.

By mandating that the PCCD review county procedures before issuing grants a layer of accountability is created that can be used to our advantage. It gives us a clearer picture of what Counties don't want to follow the law and gives us a far better means to pursue other actions against them (legal or otherwise).

When local media get word of the fact that their county isn't getting funds due to ignorance or defiance of the law, it will create a negative image upon that Sheriff and help set things right. The negative attention the PA Sheriff's Association was getting over the fee issue being raised in Lehigh and Bucks county last year made a HUGE impact internally, and is one of the reasons fees have dropped to $25 basically across the board (even in Counties that stubbornly insisted that their fees were proper).

This uses political pressure as an effective tool for change, since DA's really don't seem to care about these matters. That will empower local citizens, and groups like the NRA and FOAC, to really pile on the pressure in any district that wants to defy the legislature.

[ChamberedRound]

And, we're going to rely on... who, exactly, to enforce this? Who is going to represent our interests in the accountability process? Other than not giving sheriffs money they already aren't getting now and thus won't miss if they don't get it anyway, what kind of teeth are in this bill?

I agree that we need language in the law to set the permit fees to a standard, fixed price.

However, I have to agree with the above sentiment. We shouldn't have to provide monetary incentive to get Sheriffs who swear to uphold the law to ACTUALLY uphold the law. The incentive to uphold the law is already on the books: a charge of Official Oppression or the like. If Sheriff is violating the law, then the DA should charge him, the police should arrest him, and the courts should try him.

Unfortunately, the offices of the Sheriff, DA/AG, PSP, and local law enforcement have become too buddy-buddy with one another to enforce the laws already on the books. It's THAT attitude which needs to change.

[IronSight]

I agree that we need language in the law to set the permit fees to a standard, fixed price.

However, I have to agree with the above sentiment. We shouldn't have to provide monetary incentive to get Sheriffs who swear to uphold the law to ACTUALLY uphold the law. The incentive to uphold the law is already on the books: a charge of Official Oppression or the like. If Sheriff is violating the law, then the DA should charge him, the police should arrest him, and the courts should try him.

Unfortunately, the offices of the Sheriff, DA/AG, PSP, and local law enforcement have become too buddy-buddy with one another to enforce the laws already on the books. It's THAT attitude which needs to change.

I do agree with you, and there's actually a lot of internal disagreement between Sheriffs about those who enact their own fees and requirements (or those who did, and have since stopped).

I wish legislation like this wasn't needed, but I feel that it truly is. Until we move to constitutional carry we need to work on the problems of our current system, this is one way to do that.

[anonymouse]

It's a shame they didn't increase the penalty for Sheriffs who overcharge - it's still a summary offense.

I suppose it doesn't matter though, because I'm sure they won't have "any apparent criminal intent" in overcharging...

[FNG19]

When I first saw the language of this bill (which was quite some time ago, I must say) I had the same concerns you do.

Ok, good. Fair enough.

This bill would reward all the Sheriffs that are complying with the law, which is the majority of them

This, itself, is where I start to get annoyed. Rewarding someone for doing what they should be doing anyway doesn't seem right to me, particularly when you're using the fruit of the poisoned tree (to twist a legal metaphor) to do it. Frankly, I'd rather see the excess money collected and put into a fund to pay for mandatory state-wide reviews of the 67 issuing authorities in the state, then issue 30 day correction notices, then do another review in 45 days to assure compliance. Then, do random checks once a year to ensure compliance.

By mandating that the PCCD review county procedures before issuing grants a layer of accountability is created that can be used to our advantage.

I don't know anything about the PCCD. With that in mind: Can they really be trusted to give a fair review and call out people who are breaking the law? Where's the skeptic that is going to hold them to the letter to the letter of the law?

This uses political pressure as an effective tool for change, since DA's really don't seem to care about these matters.

And that's the heart of the problem right there. We shouldn't be incentivizing criminals. We should be jailing them, or at the very least removing them from office.

[ChamberedRound]

I do agree with you, and there's actually a lot of internal disagreement between Sheriffs about those who enact their own fees and requirements (or those who did, and have since stopped).

I wish legislation like this wasn't needed, but I feel that it truly is. Until we move to constitutional carry we need to work on the problems of our current system, this is one way to do that.

Everyone's entitled to their opinion, and to advance the causes they believe in. For me, this isn't one I personally wish to pursue.

I'd rather there be varying permit fees throughout the state, then have to redirect my hard-earned money to Sheriff's offices at a time when austerity is being called for, especially when the monetary incentive is to entice Sheriffs to follow the proposed law, something they should do anyway by definition if it is passed.

For me, it's an issue of principle; the incentive is saying, "You don't need to respect the rule of law ALWAYS, you only need to respect it WHEN WE PAY YOU". This tactic runs the risk of backfiring and turning us into a Banana Republic by having the Sheriffs, police, and any other organization in government demanding bribes from the Legislative to perform any number of tasks or functions which are already part of their responsibility.

Get rid of the monetary incentive, and have this law just be a legal requirement to standardize fees, and I'm in.

[IronSight]

Ok, good. Fair enough.



This, itself, is where I start to get annoyed. Rewarding someone for doing what they should be doing anyway doesn't seem right to me, particularly when you're using the fruit of the poisoned tree (to twist a legal metaphor) to do it. Frankly, I'd rather see the excess money collected and put into a fund to pay for mandatory state-wide reviews of the 67 issuing authorities in the state, then issue 30 day correction notices, then do another review in 45 days to assure compliance. Then, do random checks once a year to ensure compliance.



I don't know anything about the PCCD. With that in mind: Can they really be trusted to give a fair review and call out people who are breaking the law? Where's the skeptic that is going to hold them to the letter to the letter of the law?



And that's the heart of the problem right there. We shouldn't be incentivizing criminals. We should be jailing them, or at the very least removing them from office.

Everyone's entitled to their opinion, and to advance the causes they believe in. For me, this isn't one I personally wish to pursue.

I'd rather there be varying permit fees throughout the state, then have to redirect my hard-earned money to Sheriff's offices at a time when austerity is being called for, especially when the monetary incentive is to entice Sheriffs to follow the proposed law, something they should do anyway by definition if it is passed.

For me, it's an issue of principle; the incentive is saying, "You don't need to respect the rule of law ALWAYS, you only need to respect it WHEN WE PAY YOU". This tactic runs the risk of backfiring and turning us into a Banana Republic by having the Sheriffs, police, and any other organization in government demanding bribes from the Legislative to perform any number of tasks or functions which are already part of their responsibility.

Get rid of the monetary incentive, and have this law just be a legal requirement to standardize fees, and I'm in.

I've got to leave my computer for the next few hours; just reserving the space here. When I get back I'll try to address the points both of you have raised. And believe me they are good points.