2011-12 Proposed law for dealing with Municipalities Violating Preemption Law

[jhbenson4]

Last verified this list on early am on monday June 27 and double check anyone that added since Friday Rep LAWRENCEwasn't listed.

As I just sent out a limited A-Team special action effort for those going to be at the signing of HB 40 on June 28th.
So now have to update everyone on count is now 52 sponsors.

Either way +Reps points to you Lazydog
for getting Rep LAWRENCE to add name as a sponsor to HB 1523.

http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/...type=B&BN=1523

Glad to see Dan Moul is a cosponsor, I love working with him.

[Lazydog]

I have sent emails to all the Reps listed on the second posting asking them if they support this bill and if they would Co-Sponsor it. I have since heard back from a few Reps on this subject as follows:

Mark Keller

not a problem I do support
*
Mark K. Keller
State Representative
Perry & Franklin Counties
1-800-959-8119
FAX - 717-582-8979

Jim Marshall

I reviewed the cosponsor memo for HB 1523 and I would support it and will most likely cosponsor it.
Sincerely,
Jim

Julie HarHart

Really no reason. *We have 2000 co-sponsership that cross my desk, I must have missed this bill. *I will see if I could still co-sponser this bill.

Eli Evankovich

It was simply an oversight that I am not already on the bill.
*
I will support this bill.
*
Thanks,
*
Eli

Tarah Toohil

Yes. I am in support of it and will co-sponsor it.
*
Thank you,
*
Tarah

Some responses I received that say they support but don't Co-Sponsor:

Eugene DePasquale

I believe that is the bill pertaining to municipal regulation. If I am correct I do not support municipal regulation of firearms as I believe that is the role of the Legislature and the Governor within the parameters of the Federal and State Constitutions. As a result, I would support this legislation.

I rarely co-sponsor any bill for a host of reasons.

I hope this information is helpful.

The rarely co-sponsor is what I question and will follow-up on this.

Mike Fleck and Curt Schroder had no idea what the bill was. I sent them a reply.

[oblivionboyj]

I had a conversation about several ideas I have seen discussed here with my rep. and he brought up this bill when I asked about penalties for violating preemption.
He is already a cosponsor, so I thanked him for his support... again.
He is pretty much always on board for the pro 2A bills.
I never take giving him my thanks for granted though, and I never hesitate to let him know he has support for joining onto legislative initiatives that either put power back to us or restore our rights.

He also intimated they are working on a slew of other legislation that will benifit gun owners.

For those of you that have not already, try and get to know your legislators.
I feel better asking mine to support legislation with the knowlege that they know who is asking them for their support.
I don't feel like a stranger walking in with hat in hand when I talk to my legislators.
I think knowing them, even casually, is a valuable thing.

[FNG19]

I read this bill, and I'm having a hard time getting behind it. In theory, I like the concept, but there's a huge missing gap: There's no deterrent to require compliance. As I see it, here's what needs to happen for this bill to kick in:

1) Preemption violation of some kind
2) A suit challenging it, including all the costs therein
3) Win the suit, activate damage and fees clauses in this bill

The problem, as I see it, is that there's nothing there that's punitive. The taxpayers of the municipality pay the damages and fees if they lose, and the elected officials are free to just continue to do this. They have zero skin in the game.

With all due respect to Rep Metcalfe, who I genuinely believe is trying to do the right thing, I can't see how this bill helps us in any substantive way. Yes, it could lead to a payout, but it's easy for the municipal elected officials to spend other people's money. Now, I'm open to being convinced that I'm wrong, and I hope everyone realizes that I'm not nay-saying just to nay-say. I'm just not convinced right now of the utility of this bill.

Now, if you add in criminal penalties for "known or should have known", then there's a conversation to have here. Then again, if the DA's won't prosecute... but I digress.

[thefirstndsecond]

I agree with FNG19.

If they violate it, nothing happens. So it becomes "feel good" legislation.

There needs to be accountability for the district, especially if they Knowingly commit this act.

Look at Philadelphia when Lynn Abrahms would not prosecute the mayor for committing a misdemeanor.

[WhiteFeather]

I have sent emails to all the Reps listed on the second posting asking them if they support this bill and if they would Co-Sponsor it. I have since heard back from a few Reps on this subject as follows:

Mark Keller

Jim Marshall

Julie HarHart

Eli Evankovich

Tarah Toohil

Some responses I received that say they support but don't Co-Sponsor:

Eugene DePasquale

The rarely co-sponsor is what I question and will follow-up on this.

Mike Fleck and Curt Schroder had no idea what the bill was. I sent them a reply.

Lazydog your list was very helpful
Spoke with several of these Reps in person on June 28, 2011 or stopped by their office before HB 40 castle doctrine was signed into law to make sure this got followed up expect a few more names to be added.

METCALFE, AUMENT, BENNINGHOFF, CALTAGIRONE, CAUSER, COX, CREIGHTON, CUTLER, ELLIS, GABLER, GEORGE, GIBBONS, GRELL, GROVE, HARRIS, HESS, HUTCHINSON, KAUFFMAN, F. KELLER, KNOWLES, KORTZ, KOTIK, KRIEGER, LONGIETTI, MALONEY, METZGAR, MILLARD, MILLER, MOUL, MUSTIO, PERRY, PETRARCA, PYLE, RAPP, READSHAW, ROAE, ROCK, SACCONE, STABACK, STEVENSON, SWANGER, TALLMAN, TURZAI, VULAKOVICH, WHITE, CHRISTIANA, SAYLOR, HICKERNELL, BAKER, HAHN, DENLINGER, LAWRENCE, HELM, BROOKS, HARHART, M. K. KELLER and EVANKOVICH June 28, 2011

57 sponsors as of June 28

[Lazydog]

The problem, as I see it, is that there's nothing there that's punitive. The taxpayers of the municipality pay the damages and fees if they lose, and the elected officials are free to just continue to do this. They have zero skin in the game.

If they violate it, nothing happens. So it becomes "feel good" legislation.

I will agree that on face value it doesn't look to have any teeth. What bill does for that matter when it is directed towards the government?

You want this to hurt then when you bring a lawsuit you are going to have to name the members of the board along with the municipality.

Word gets out that these people are costing the tax payer money and they should not be re-elected if the sheeple really care about what is done with their tax dollars.

I don't see this as being as power-less as you make it out to be. Every little bit helps and counts.

[Lazydog]

[COLOR="Blue"]Lazydog your list was very helpful

Glad I could help.

[ChamberedRound]

For those of you that don't believe this bill will help, or is "feel good" legislation, do you have any other suggestions that might force the legislators to adhere to the law? Don't say criminal charges, because there are already laws on the books for that (Official Oppression, Ethics violations, etc.). When we already have criminal laws on the books that a) legislators won't abide by, and b) DAs won't press charges on, then writing new criminal laws they won't follow or make use of is pointless.

I don't like the idea of the taxpayers having to pay for these local politicians' mistakes, but hitting the town's/county's purse strings seems to be the only way to get these people to listen.

[FNG19]

For those of you that don't believe this bill will help, or is "feel good" legislation, do you have any other suggestions that might force the legislators to adhere to the law?
(...)
I don't like the idea of the taxpayers having to pay for these local politicians' mistakes, but hitting the town's/county's purse strings seems to be the only way to get these people to listen.

I'm not sure, CR. This is a difficult needle to thread. However, I do want to correct one thing you said. This isn't about honest mistakes. It's about willfully giving the State the finger. If a municipality passes an ordinance that violates preemption, it seems we've been really successful at having them change things without having to go to court just by bugging the hell out of them about it. We rarely, if ever, have had to threaten going to court that I'm aware of, and even rarer have we actually had to go there. For those types of offenses, it's of the "honest mistake" variety IMHO. They've been made aware, they generally take correction action, all is well in the world.

However, some places in the state just don't care, like, say, Philly. Philly basically does what it wants and lets the courts deal with the fallout. I'm convinced they know that what they're doing is against the law. They also know that there's nothing that can happen to them as a result, so there's no disincentive. $5M payout? Big deal. That's taxpayer money.

Now, if you wanted to include something in that $5M payout that would make the people that voted for the ordinance/law/whatever personally liable for the award on a "known or should have known" basis, then they've got skin in the game. It also makes passing restrictions a very, very risky proposition, which is another added benefit. That said, I'm not sure if this is legally possible (or even desirable, in the big picture).

I agree that this is a problem that needs to be addressed, but I don't agree with punishing the taxpayers for the (alleged) criminal acts of their representatives. There has to be some way to join the actor with the consequences here. Failing that, you're just punishing the wrong people.