Confiscation of guns might put a crimp on poachers

[WhiteFeather]

Rep. Sam Rohrer and Kim Stolfer pushed very hard to remove the forfeiture rights of the state. If you think well I don't go hunting, so who cares, do you ever shoot at a PGC range, ever pop a nuisance ground hog eating your garden, left a acquaintance hunt on your property? Any of these events or more could have possibly lead to the Confiscation of your firearms and even the land where the game law violation occurred.

If anyone read the actual language of the proposed bill it was written so vague and sweeping that it was ripe for abuse by the PGC and the legal system to abuse people rights.



http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08209/899823-358.stm

Confiscation of guns might put a crimp on poachers

But state fails to win forfeiture right

A legislative effort to restore the Pennsylvania Game Commission's authority in taking away the firearms of wildlife violators has failed.

Under pressure from some gun owners and sportsmen, the House Game and Fisheries committee is expected to remove language dealing with confiscation and forfeiture from House Bill 2205, which is aimed at overhauling penalties for poachers. The committee also tweaked the measure to go easier on first-time violators and get tougher on repeat offenders.

The bill could be voted on this fall, but, given the upcoming general election, it is expected to be reintroduced and acted upon next year. It would require both House and Senate approval.

Amending forfeiture from the bill increases its chance of passage, said committee chair Rep. Ed Staback (D-Lackawanna).

"The [forfeiture] portion of the bill became extremely controversial," he said. "Rather than see the entire bill destroyed as a result, we decided to remove all the [forfeiture] language, and deal with it in another bill down the road. For now, we want to focus on poaching."

Kim Stolfer of the Allegheny County Sportsmen's League and Firearms Owners Against Crime, concerned it would give the Game Commission too much power over personal property rights, lobbied the committee against forfeiture.

"Let's ratchet up the penalties and show we're serious about poaching," said Stolfer, of McDonald. "But leave asset forfeiture out of the game code."

The committee's minority chair, Rep. Sam Rohrer (R-Berks), said the bill's forfeiture language -- modeled after drug forfeiture laws -- was so vague it threatened "far too much of a real or potential infringement on citizens' rights."

In light of what he called a "demonstrated government aggressiveness" in recent years to compromise constitutional rights, "any legislation having to do with taking property away from individuals had better be very carefully crafted and considered."

Game Commission officials said the agency is only interested in firearms, jack lights and other property such as ATVs directly connected to serious violations, and offered to explicitly delete PennDOT-titled vehicles and real estate from the bill.

But that failed to assuage forfeiture critics.

"It would be like putting old tires on a brand new pick-up," said Stolfer.

The committee decided to delete forfeiture altogether and will be given an amended HB 2205 this fall.

The Game Commission had long standing forfeiture authority until 1990, when, in Commonwealth vs. Reeves, Commonwealth Court ruled the Game Code didn't provide for due process in keeping a violator's vehicle. The case involved an SUV defendant Gary L. Reeves used to transport poachers. Although he pled guilty, Reeves convinced the court the commission acted without statutory power in keeping his vehicle.

The ruling set precedent, stripping the commission of its forfeiture authority for everything except wildlife and wildlife parts, or obvious contraband, such as marijuana. Legal firearms, knives, spotlights and other items -- even when used unlawfully -- can be seized only for evidence and must be returned to the owner once a case is adjudicated.

Even with statutory authority, the commission would have to convince the court to order forfeiture, as a matter of constitutionally guaranteed due process.

"Without statutory authority, we can't even ask," said Game Commission assistant counsel Jason Raup. "And we haven't asked since Reeves."

Raup said he can recall just two occasions when a judge or district attorney ordered hunting weapons forfeited.

"There were other criminal activities beside wildlife poaching involved, and the guys did something so bad the DA or the judge found some other statutory vehicle with which to do it," he said.

Those cases dramatize the impact forfeiture can have, said commission law enforcement chief Rich Palmer.

"One guy was almost in tears trying to buy his two guns back from us," he said. "He had multiple offenses, a 60-year license revocation, and thousands of dollars in fines, but nothing got his attention like the forfeiture of his guns. His family was offering to pay us far more than they were worth."

The commission does not sell guns back to former owners.

Some critics of Pennsylvania's poaching laws regard the commonwealth as soft on poaching, as compared with other states, although HB 2055 would increase serious offenses to the level of felony and provide for harsher fines and jail time, which is not now allowed under the Game Code.

Separate legislation was introduced this year to enroll Pennsylvania in the Interstate Wildlife Violator Compact, which bans violators in one state from hunting in all member states. Pennsylvania is one of just a few states that hasn't joined.

Raup said forfeiture would have put more teeth in the anti-poaching package, which mostly targets serial offenders.

"Besides jail time and higher fines, they'd know they'd likely lose their weapon," he said. "We prosecuted one guy on three different occasions, and although he was found guilty, we had to give him back his crossbow."

Palmer said wildlife officers in other states tell him forfeiture is effective.

"License revocation and permanent forfeiture of firearms -- especially in states in the compact -- are the two big deterrents," he said. "Firearms are the No. 1 thing. People have a strong emotional attachment to their guns."

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department attorney Boyd Kennedy backs that up.

"We were pretty much where you are until the 1990s," he said. "Fines weren't making the serious offenses go away, so we raised the stakes."

The state legislature increased penalties for poaching, and broadened the wildlife department's forfeiture authority, he said. "Forfeiture is aimed at certain crimes, like hunting without landowner consent or with spotlights, or hunting from a car on the road. And it has worked. We've seen a decline in those offenses."

Col. Peter Flores, director of law enforcement for Texas Parks and Wildlife, agrees forfeiture hits poachers where it hurts.

"We took away a prized Browning rifle, [which] had belonged to a violator's granddaddy, for hunting without landowner consent," he said. "The guy was 27 [years old] but when he got out of jail, he was more afraid of facing his daddy over the loss of a family heirloom."

But Rohrer said what other states do has little bearing here, and the issues at stake affect more than gun owners.

"Every person who values a constitutional right," he said, "to travel, to speak their mind, to do anything -- had better be on heightened alert, because the evidence is clear that there is increasingly a disregard for those rights."

First published on July 27, 2008 at 12:00 am

I spoke to Rep. Ed Staback on several occasions about this legislation and possible abuse by the PGC and he gave me several examples of repeat poachers getting a slap on the wrist under current game laws and it was not being a deterrent to stop them. I gave him more numerous examples of repeat violent criminals that are treated less harsh for really hurting people.
I asked Rep. Ed Staback are animals more valuable than people rights? It shut the discussion down

[dc dalton]

I asked Rep. Ed Staback are animals more valuable than people rights? It shut the discussion down

Not surprising to be honest, for many years animal rights have moved forward while human rights have crawled backwards.

My question is why do they keep trying to get these horribly worded laws through? Is it just not thinking things out or are they intentionally trying to leave gaping holes so they can use the laws in ways that aren't obvious to most?

[schr8er2000]

I HATE to see the forfeiture part taken out..... If you lose more than just your gun then they might think a little more... Poachers are a scourge for all of us, hunter and non hunters alike...

I know that back in Wisconsin if you are convicted of poaching they can take anything and everything that was used in the commission of that crime... guns, vehicles, boats, ATV's..etc... PLUS you automatically lose hunting and/or fishing priviledges for a minimum of 3 years......... and it HAS made a difference....

[coat4gun]

I HATE to see the forfeiture part taken out

Be careful what you wish for. Next thing you know someone may think you should forfeit your car for speeding.

I will never agree with forfeiture laws for any reason. Forfeiture laws are Government taking without just compensation and are unconstitutional. I don't care if they do occasionally work... so does execution and torture and I don't think that is a great idea either.

They can find some other way to increase the penalty.

[pex]

A person wouldn't even have to read the discussion to know where talks of deterring poachers would manifest itself in law.

The law isn't going to say "well, if the GC used probable cause seeing you in the act of unlawfully taking game, they would try and get you for poaching", it's going to say "if you have a gun anywhere where animals have been known to be, including your own property, you are poaching until proven innocent." The law probably further says "The GC shall have the authority to confiscate firearms on your person and within the next 15 days, all firearms in your possession. You may appeal within 30 days to the court of common pleas." Sounds similar to another usurpation without due process? LTCF, anyone?

We have regulars on this forum who might even advocate some sort of "reasonable restrictions" to meet the end we must all be protected from. The equation is as follows:

1 part "perceived harm" + 1 part "reasonable community" + 1 part "jumbling of facts" + 1 part sheeple =

1 good way to lose lawful firearms for good.

I have read multiple times about the anecdote that our game laws are strangely reminiscent of some past tyranny's game laws (either an English king's or a NAZI's) as a way to significantly disarm the general population. It strikes me as amusing the multiple ways we can forgo presumptions of innocence simply by alluding to animals in any part of the situation.

I would rather not take the chance that the anecdote is a lie.

[GunLawyer001]

The problem with forfeiture laws is the arbitrary nature of the additional punishment. If some gangbanger shoots at a buck with his Lorcin, he loses his $100 piece-o'-crap. If another guy with a $10,000 shotgun does the same thing, he loses his $10,000 shotgun. Same offense, different punishment. It's more fair to just fine them within the guidelines, and what's the difference between a $10,000 fine and seizing their $10,000 car?

Another issue is the number of arbitrary offenses. Shooting at tin cans at the PGC rifle range is a citable offense; should you lose your $1500 rifle over that? I believe it's also a violation if your kids bring in wounded birds or other wild animals, but do you want to lose your home over that?

If fines and loss of hunting privileges won't deter poachers, then throw them in jail. A weekend for the first offense, 20 days for the second, 200 days for the third...exponential punishment will either teach them to stop, or physically prevent them from doing anything that can't be done from a jail cell. One way or another, it works.

BTW, I'd do the same for people who drive with suspended licenses. Too many of them lose their license and then drive home from court, drive to work every day, drive their kids to school, because it would be inconvenient and expensive to obey the law. How hard is it to send a cop over in the morning to watch them get into their car, and arrest them?

[pex]

If fines and loss of hunting privileges won't deter poachers, then throw them in jail. A weekend for the first offense, 20 days for the second, 200 days for the third...exponential punishment will either teach them to stop, or physically prevent them from doing anything that can't be done from a jail cell. One way or another, it works.

If our purpose for creating the law was the reduction of harm to state property, we're going to have a hard time rationalizing that when the penalties for poaching drive people to turn their guns on GC officers.

BTW, I'd do the same for people who drive with suspended licenses.

So what do you do with the people who don't get licenses because they believe some SCOTUS guy said there's a constitutional right to travel?

[ThunderingWind]

Not to justify ANY poaching...

But how many animals are taken out of season for the simple reason of putting a meat-based protein on the table for the family and the person
got caught doing it?

With the economy going the way it is going, there will be a lot more hunting for food that is not done "is season" just to feed the family.

If the poacher is just a poacher - shooting for the sake of shooting the animal - then they should be punished (jail, fine, lose of weapon, lose of hunting rights/permission/privilege, and a firearms violation that keeps them for legally owning a firearm for a while).

[GunLawyer001]

Not to justify ANY poaching...

But how many animals are taken out of season for the simple reason of putting a meat-based protein on the table for the family and the person
got caught doing it?

With the economy going the way it is going, there will be a lot more hunting for food that is not done "is season" just to feed the family.

If the poacher is just a poacher - shooting for the sake of shooting the animal - then they should be punished (jail, fine, lose of weapon, lose of hunting rights/permission/privilege, and a firearms violation that keeps them for legally owning a firearm for a while).

We're long past the days of Jean Valjean, who stole bread to feed his starving family. We have food stamps, Welfare, WIC, AFDC, community food banks, etc. Nobody will starve if he doesn't take his $500 rifle out to bring some out-of-season meat home from the zoo for Tiny Tim and little Nell.

[ThunderingWind]

We're long past the days of Jean Valjean, who stole bread to feed his starving family. We have food stamps, Welfare, WIC, AFDC, community food banks, etc. Nobody will starve if he doesn't take his $500 rifle out to bring some out-of-season meat home from the zoo for Tiny Tim and little Nell.

I will have to disagree. The local food banks here and where my grandkids live are, for all intents and purposes, out of food. Several major layoffs have hit both cities and even though there were "good" job announcements for the general Johnstown area, the workers that were laid off do not have the skills needed to fill the positions.

But you are right, there are programs out there to help those in need.

However, I expect to see a rise in poaching to help feed the family in the highly rual areas. I also expect more hunters this year and they will take as much as the law allows.