HB 921 Elimination (PICS) & use National Instant Check System (NICS) Rep Krieger 2013

[WOP2]

Rep Krieger is bringing this back for the 2013-2014 sessionas HB 921

http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/...cosponId=11871




List of past co sponsors from last session

kbenning@pahousegop.com; jchristi@pahousegop.com; jcox@pahousegop.com; bcutler@pahousegop.com; pdaley@pahouse.net; gdenling@pahousegop.com; bellis@pahousegop.com; eevankov@pahousegop.com; geverett@pahousegop.com; mfleck@pahousegop.com; mgergely@pahouse.net; ggrell@pahousegop.com; tharhai@pahouse.net; jharhart@pahousegop.com; nkotik@pahouse.net; jlawrenc@pahousegop.com; jmaher@pahousegop.com; dmaloney@pahousegop.com; tmurt@pahousegop.com; jpetrarc@pahouse.net; tpickett@pahousegop.com; mquinn@pahousegop.com; klrapp@pahousegop.com; csainato@pahouse.net; csonney@pahousegop.com; rswanger@pahousegop.com; mturzai@pahousegop.com; jwhite@pahouse.net;


List of Reps to ask as well that were not past sponsors


mbaker@pahousegop.com; bbarbin@pahouse.net; sbarrar@pahousegop.com; rbizzarro@pahouse.net; kboback@pahousegop.com; mbrooks@pahousegop.com; rbrown@pahousegop.com; fburns@pahouse.net; tcaltagi@pahouse.net; mcarroll@pahouse.net; pclymer@pahousegop.com; sconklin@pahouse.net; bcorbin@pahousegop.com; dcosta@pahouse.net; gday@pahousegop.com; ddeasy@pahouse.net; sdelozie@pahousegop.com; tdeluca@pahouse.net; fdermody@pahouse.net; gdigirol@pahousegop.com; jemrick@pahousegop.com; henglish@pahousegop.com; ffabrizi@pahouse.net; Ffarry@pahousegop.com; mfee@pahousegop.com; mgillen@pahousegop.com; kgillesp@pahousegop.com; rgodshal@pahousegop.com; ngoodman@pahouse.net; kgreiner@pahousegop.com; jhackett@pahousegop.com; mhahn@pahousegop.com; mhanna@pahouse.net; pharkins@pahouse.net; kharper@pahousegop.com; dheffley@pahousegop.com; shelm@pahousegop.com; dhess@pahousegop.com; dhickern@pahousegop.com;wkampf@pahousegop.com; mkeller@pahousegop.com; tkillion@pahousegop.com; jknowles@pahousegop.com; dkula@pahouse.net; mlongiet@pahouse.net; tmahoney@pahouse.net; smajor@pahousegop.com; jmarkose@pahouse.net; rmarsico@pahousegop.com; kmasser@pahousegop.com; rmatzie@pahouse.net; jmcginnis@pahousegop.com; NickMicc@pahousegop.com; nmicozzi@pahousegop.com; rmirabito@pahouse.net; dmoul@pahousegop.com; gmullery@pahouse.net; doberlan@pahousegop.com; jpayne@pahousegop.com; mpeifer@pahousegop.com; spetri@pahousegop.com; hreadsha@pahouse.net; dreed@pahousegop.com; mregan@pahousegop.com; ssaylor@pahousegop.com; mscavell@pahousegop.com; jsimmons@pahousegop.com; shsmith@pahousegop.com;mtobash@pahousegop.com; mtoepel@pahousegop.com; ttoohil@pahousegop.com; dtruitt@pahousegop.com; mvereb@pahousegop.com; kwatson@pahousegop.com;

See OP for reason why.

Really why should you have to pay extra cost to buy a firearm in PA?

UPDATE this was filed on March 6th 2013 for the 2013-2014 legislative session now known as HB 921

http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/...type=B&BN=0921

Whitefeather is correct. If you are sincere, polite, but aggressive, you will be heard by your State Rep. If you don't see yours on the list of current co-sponsors, you owe it to yourself and every lawful gun owner to contact him, or her, and politely insist they become a co-sponsor to HB 921. With any kind of response from constituents, Rep. Krieger should have at least 100 co-sponsors within a week. Or, you can sit on your ass and get run over by CeaseFirePA, Waters, Thomas, and McCarter and the rest of the anti gun gang. Its up to you. I'm asking you nicely, with all due respect, PLEASE contact your State Rep, and tell him, or her, that "the courtesy of a reply is appreciated."

[Qtrborecrazy]

Gunlawyer, could it be said that the federal government is a total failure. No secure borders, failure to send illegals back to their home countries, failure to enforce federal drug laws, failure of the senate to pass a budget in 4 years and I'm sure we can pile on a whole lot more where the federal government is no longer working. Why comply with a governing body that has FAILED? I'm no Einstein just average joe with a thought. I believe that is what needs to be proven for states to leave the union.

[GunLawyer001]

Gunlawyer, could it be said that the federal government is a total failure. No secure borders, failure to send illegals back to their home countries, failure to enforce federal drug laws, failure of the senate to pass a budget in 4 years and I'm sure we can pile on a whole lot more where the federal government is no longer working. Why comply with a governing body that has FAILED? I'm no Einstein just average joe with a thought. I believe that is what needs to be proven for states to leave the union.

There's no burden of proof for a state to leave the union, because there's no mechanism for it at all. Much like being married to a Mafia don, you only get to leave if everyone agrees. Otherwise, they kill your people and burn your buildings. Again.

[Qtrborecrazy]

There's no burden of proof for a state to leave the union, because there's no mechism for it at all. Much like being married to a Mafia don, you only get to leave if everyone agrees. Otherwise, they kill your people and burn your buildings. Again.

How sad. I thought Montana had a treaty with the feds. No way to leave except by death. We're screwed, unless Im reading you wrong.

[GunLawyer001]

How sad. I thought Montana had a treaty with the feds. No way to leave except by death. We're screwed, unless Im reading you wrong.

You could always fire on Fort Sumter and see what happens. But I can't recommend it.

[ChamberedRound]

Every time this comes up, I feel obliged to present the other side of the facts.

I like my government to be small and local. I prefer my city to the state, I prefer my state to the federal system, I prefer the feds to the United Nations. Smaller is more responsive to the individual. So given the choice between disputing a ruling by the State Police or the FBI, through going through the Pennsylvania appeal process or using the federal courts, I prefer our local guys.

As always, GL, well said.

While I respect the FOAC and all of those who support their efforts, this is one of the those initiatives that, when I weigh the pros and cons of PICS dissolution, personally I'm not sure if it's worth it. While I understand the monetary/budgetary side of the issue, and eliminating PICS would save us money, I have to agree with GL that if I were to be denied on a PICS check, it would FAR easier to appeal to the state than to the federal government.

I also agree that the Record of Sale Database is a completely separate issue from PICS. We CAN deal with those two evils separately, and I think the RoSD is a far greater evil than PICS is.

I don't begrudge anyone who supports elimination of PICS, but I think that other initiatives are far more worthy of our time, like:

- Removing the Record of Sale database, and strengthening the language of the law regarding databases or any other generic collection of information, so they can't be used as de facto registries as they are today
- Changing the law regarding carry in a vehicle, so that one can Open carry in their car without the need for an LTCF
- Changing the law regarding transport in a vehicle, so that a person without an LTCF can transport a firearm in a general case, without having to fall under the ridiculous exceptions of going directly to-from a range and home, or a place of purchase and home, etc.
- Passing Constitutional Carry, which would very likely solve a whole host of other problems

Just my $0.02.

[bmwaudio]

what was with the OPs post saying AR-15's would now be classified as pistols?! whats up with this? i thought a rifle is a gun with a 16'' or longer barrel? so how does this work, and why would they do that? seems dumb, and does that mean you cant sell one currently FTF/bill of sale??

[GunLawyer001]

what was with the OPs post saying AR-15's would now be classified as pistols?! whats up with this? i thought a rifle is a gun with a 16'' or longer barrel? so how does this work, and why would they do that? seems dumb, and does that mean you cant sell one currently FTF/bill of sale??

That was an effort under the Rendell administration to have the PSP unilaterally reclassify complete AR-15 rifles as "pistol", because the lower receiver is so modular and it could easily be made into a pistol. The usual pro-gun groups (as well as anyone capable of reading a statute) pushed back, and the PSP under the old leadership got egg on its face. That's not an issue, it never was the law. I posted a link in another thread to the PSP memo to dealers, backing down from that. I believe they also backed away from telling dealers to treat stripped lowers as "handguns", which is a more subtle point since they are not rifles, and they aren't handguns, but they are "firearms" under Federal law and parts of PA law.

ETA: Start here:
http://www.examiner.com/article/penn...tration-scheme

[spoonltz28]

I have a question about NICS. Is this the same system that Florida used when you used to be able to apply for a non resident permit ??
The reason that I ask is that I was turned done by Florida because of an incident that happended in NJ back in 98.
So if we use the NICS system, would I get turned down when I try to purchase another firearm?

[ROCK-IT3]

As always, GL, well said.

While I respect the FOAC and all of those who support their efforts, this is one of the those initiatives that, when I weigh the pros and cons of PICS dissolution, personally I'm not sure if it's worth it. While I understand the monetary/budgetary side of the issue, and eliminating PICS would save us money, I have to agree with GL that if I were to be denied on a PICS check, it would FAR easier to appeal to the state than to the federal government.

I also agree that the Record of Sale Database is a completely separate issue from PICS. We CAN deal with those two evils separately, and I think the RoSD is a far greater evil than PICS is.

I don't begrudge anyone who supports elimination of PICS, but I think that other initiatives are far more worthy of our time, like:

- Removing the Record of Sale database, and strengthening the language of the law regarding databases or any other generic collection of information, so they can't be used as de facto registries as they are today
- Changing the law regarding carry in a vehicle, so that one can Open carry in their car without the need for an LTCF
- Changing the law regarding transport in a vehicle, so that a person without an LTCF can transport a firearm in a general case, without having to fall under the ridiculous exceptions of going directly to-from a range and home, or a place of purchase and home, etc.
- Passing Constitutional Carry, which would very likely solve a whole host of other problems

Just my $0.02.

It was enlightening to me to read Gunlawyers viewpoint on this issue, and tend to agree, now that I think about it. It is easy to get caught up in supporting any measure that would seemingly allow more freedom, or at least less intrusion, of our gun-rights, but sometimes having a different perspective is necessary. You make good points as well regarding some issues that seem to be more fruitful to firearms liberties in PA.

However, according to the OP, there is no push to save any money for Pennsylvanians through elimination of PICS. The memorandum from Rep. Krieger mentions allowing the PICS funds to go back into the general fund to be used for any other programs needing funding. This is another strike against the effort to eliminate PICS. There is absolutely no savings to any PA taxpayer if the money is just going to be spent on something else. We need to eliminate programs and start reducing the size of government and expenditures at all levels, not continue to spend even if we find savings somewhere.