Another to watch out for - HB 1668

[FNG19]

While at the moment, there are no states that fit that category, why should this be eliminated?

Huh. Good catch. Which states would we stand to lose if that change is in effect? Is Florida on that list, perchance?

[XACEX]

as i read it, the bill will allow you to transport a firearm unloaded in a vehicle without a license to any destination in the state

[-JD-]

While at the moment, there are no states that fit that category, why should this be eliminated?

Huh. Good catch. Which states would we stand to lose if that change is in effect? Is Florida on that list, perchance?

errrr

While at the moment, there are no states that fit that category ...

none (at the moment) as far as I can tell.

You haven't, perchance, been spending your time in the whiskey and bourbon thread?

[FNG19]

errrr
none (at the moment) as far as I can tell.

You haven't, perchance, been spending your time in the whiskey and bourbon thread?

Heh, oops. I read your post, then read the clause and started to think about what it could mean. Then it dawned on me... could this be a backdoor way of accomplishing the "FL Loophole"?

Unfortunately, you already answered it! Mea culpa!

[Big Chuck]

as i read it, the bill will allow you to transport a firearm unloaded in a vehicle without a license to any destination in the state

Walking is a mode of transportation, so it also sounds like you could carry a firearm concealed or unconcealed, even in a city of the first class, even during a state of emergency, without a license, as long as the firearm is not loaded, and as long as you are not a prohibited from owning a firearm. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

(17) Any person who is not otherwise prohibited from possessing, using, controlling, selling, transferring or manufacturing a firearm shall be entitled to transport a firearm if all of the following apply:

(i) During the transportation, the firearm is not loaded.
(ii) The firearm is not being transported for purposes prohibited under the laws of this Commonwealth.

[-JD-]

I read your post, then read the clause and started to think about what it could mean. Then it dawned on me... could this be a backdoor way of accomplishing the "FL Loophole"?

At first, I was wondering the same thing, but as of now PA only recognizes licenses/permits from states that recognize PA's, either by specific agreement or "statutorily".

From what I see, it will not have any immediate effect. But, why foreclose the possibility?

[WhiteFeather]

Sanity check please!

It seems to me that this version of the bill eliminates any posibility to carry on LTCF equivalent from a state that does not recognize PA LTCFs. It removes the ability of the Attorney General to grant unilateral acceptance of another state's permit. While at the moment, there are no states that fit that category, why should this be eliminated?

Despite the "We won't recognize yours unless you recognize ours" crap, shouldn't we (PA) recognize any license/permit that meets our standards?

From:http://www.legis.state.pa.us/CFDOCS/...r=1668&pn=2110

~snip~
Section 1. Section 6106(b) of Title 18 of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes is amended to read:
§ 6106. Firearms not to be carried without a license.
* * *
(b) Exceptions. The provisions of subsection (a) shall not apply to:
~snip~

15 (15) Any person who possesses a valid and lawfully
16 issued license or permit to carry a firearm which has been
17 issued under the laws of another state, regardless of whether
18 a reciprocity agreement exists between the Commonwealth and
19 the other state under section 6109(k), provided[:
20 (i) The] the other state provides a reciprocal
21 privilege for individuals licensed to carry firearms
22 under section 6109.
23 [(ii) The Attorney General has determined that the
24 firearm laws of the state are similar to the firearm laws
25 of this Commonwealth.]

Going to try to explain this and keep this short as possible.

Not so much of only a debate the merits, just explaining why and for you all to consider the bigger picture so hopefully can support this effort after more consideration.

By The Way convincing and educating you on this complex subject on the UFA is way easier than this same task is with lots of elected Reps, so keep this in mind when you ask for their support.

The correction of the Attorney General powers on this subject is not the main intent of this effort with HB 1668, just a clean sweep while the scissors are being used to deal with the removing of the no stop without a LTCF provision.



I believe PA has only had 4 elected Attorney General other than Tom Corbett holding that position.

Despite some people opinion to the contrary on what powers the PA Attorney General has and doesn’t or what former AG’s have done.



Tom Corbett while holding that office got more reciprocity agreement with other states than almost all the rest of the past Attorney Generals combined.

Whether Tom Corbett is pro gun enough for you or up to your standards of what is or is not PG isn't the issue, you don’t even want to go back to the days of the like of a Ernie Preate holding this office again to appreciate how bad it could with a war on gun owner rights.


The chances are very good that another AG that don’t like you or other people carrying firearms is the going to be holding this chief legal officer position sooner or later again. They may also choose to use that offices granted power to take away reciprocity agreements.

Because if you read the existing section of law that is up to the Attorney General to solely determine IF the laws are similar that section (15) applies or not..... works the same way to enter into reciprocity agreements .

This door swings both ways

It also could work the other way the PA AG could cancel some state as well or just spend a little time researching another state gun laws and determine that a state doesn’t have the exact (similar) same provisions to issuing LTCF because there is not something in current PA that would prohibit an individual from another state or the next time another state change their laws with firearms, be another chance to cancel another state.

The word similar has lots of room to intrepid what is, is similar


As a Example
The PA sheriff can use the existing PA Law character & reputation clause and cancel your LTCF for a reason valid or not. The AG can read that section of PA law and make the determination that the other states law is weaker, therefore not similar. Canceled - NO more reciprocity with that state, pick them off one at a time by finding some conflicting statues with another law in PA that is not similar.

See how with the election of the next Attorney General how the pendulum can swing the other direction?

It would be up to the Attorney General to determine what “similar” means

[(ii) The Attorney General has determined that the firearm laws of the state are similar to the firearm laws of this Commonwealth.]

So do you really want to leave this section in here with now and take a chance?

Could even use the BS with the so called Florida loophole to cancel the non-resident out of state permits unless you have a PA issued one right now.

ALL the above is just one example it could also apply to other sections, such as the interstate transportation once you reached your destination in PA its now it’s in state. Much like what happened in NJ with the guys flight being cancelled and coming back next day to re check his firearm BS.

Many other sections of our state and other states laws come into play and IF we get another Attorney General that is against guns it could be real bad for us.

As the PA UFA over the years have not only gotten bigger and much more complicated with section interfacing with other sections that didn’t use to exist pre 1995. All of this adding more firearm laws makes it easier for someone with agenda and holding the right position in power to take your rights.

This quote covers how this works best.

You do not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harms it would cause if improperly administered.
Lyndon B. Johnson

Removing the existing stupid NO Stop clause which is the main intent of this effort along with this section of law and several others in here will remove some of the chances of abuse of a law that was original introduced and sold to us to be used against criminal intent.

IF you are not a criminal and can pass a background check this whole section of law never should never have been written this way because there was only limited allowance for anyone without LTCF permit.

Besides you shouldn’t need to get a permit from the government (a privilege) to exercise a constitutional right in the first place, this effort with HB 1668 is an effort to fix this.

As usual no proposed law is perfect and no correction is going to give us what we all want or would wish for, still this will give us what we need for the big picture and long term goal of PA having a two tiered system.
Only a dream for now, still this section is an obstruction to this lofty goal that has to be removed 1st.


IF after consideration of all things, and careful study, you want to support this effort with HB 1668 how about doing your part by contacting some Reps?

read about this effort here on who need contacted and getting this passed into law to fix current injustice.


2011-12 Getting rid of NO STOPS clause with the transportation of gun w/o LTCF
http://forum.pafoa.org/pennsylvania-...-w-o-ltcf.html

[-JD-]

Thanks for the explanation, WhiteFeather. And I spoke further with Activist last night.

I guess I was misunderstanding the statute as it exists now, reading it as "i) OR ii)" not "i) AND ii)".

[WhiteFeather]

Thanks for the explanation, WhiteFeather. And I spoke further with Activist last night.

I guess I was misunderstanding the statute as it exists now, reading it as "i) OR ii)" not "i) AND ii)".

No problem the UFA is a very complicated set of laws to understand.


Reading this legalese is a pain when you combine other section of the law that a change here or there effects other section of law. Its not as easy to draft up a revision and corrections as many think. LET ALONE GETTING ANY PROPOSED CHANGE THROUGH THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS INTACT.

here is what that section (15) will read in final format in UFA if this get "approved" as you can see it takes away the limiting factor of asking the Attorney General for this exemption to review another states laws.

(15) Any person who possesses a valid and lawfully issued license or permit to carry a firearm which has been issued under the laws of another state, regardless of whether a reciprocity agreement exists between the Commonwealth and the other state under section 6109(k), provided the other state provides a reciprocal privilege for individuals licensed to carry firearms under section 6109.

See how taking this section out will solve problems in the future for us as it removes the Attorney General from the equation.

[(ii) The Attorney General has determined that the firearm laws of the state are similar to the firearm laws of this Commonwealth.]

Frankly the Attorney General has other more important things to be spending their time on that trying to look at people from other states that have no criminal records and can legally own firearms. By removing this section this will help reduce the work load & cost on the AG office.
That way the Attorney General will have the extra time to deal with locking up real repeat violent criminal with intentions on hurting people.



If there is ever some law we are supporting (or help draft / review) and you got a question ask PM / EMAIL there is always a reason for something, sometimes we don't want to draw un necessary attention to a part or a few words and let it fly under the radar.

keep in mind when reading any proposed legislation the underline section is what is being added and [ ] brackets are area of text being [deleted], sometime they use the strike through text which is easier to read than looking for [ ]

[fragmag]

Thx for the details whitefeather. This was confusing on first read.