Year: 2007

Bitter gives us an update.  My main fear with this bill is that, if it gets stalled, and starts to be debated, that will provide opportunities for anti-gun amendments.  Fortunately, so far, it’s only provided opportunities for amendments that are unobjectionable.

An e-mail alert from PA Federation of Sportsman’s Clubs provided some more detail on Lynn Abraham’s testimony before the House Judiciary Committee. Here’s her recommendations:

1. Permit the disclosure and examination of mental health records for individuals seeking to purchase firearms
2. Strengthen Section 6105 to prevent people previously convicted of any violation of the Uniform Firearms Act from buying another gun
3. Amend Section 6105 so that people awaiting trial on firearms offenses cannot possess firearms
4. Require the owner of a lost or stolen firearm to report the theft or loss within 24 hours of discovery and punish the failure to report as a misdemeanor of the first degree
5. Treat adult violations for convicted felons who possess firearms the same, regardless of whether the prior disabling offense was an adult conviction or a juvenile adjudication
6. Make sure that people convicted of illegally transferring a firearm cannot legally possess more guns in the future
7. Mare sure defendants convicted of lying on state or federal firearms forms are disqualified from owning a firearm
8. Prevent defendants convicted of filing false police reports for theft of a firearm from possessing firearms

One would be acceptable if proper safeguards and relief from disability mechanisms are in place.

Two and three are absolutely out of the question. There are many violations of UFA that are minor, and more than a few that are summary offenses. I have no problems with barring firearms ownership for people convicted of violent crimes, but not for UFA violations, which are not violent, and certainly not for anything less than a conviction.   These are rights, not privileges.  You don’t take away rights unless there’s been due process.

Four is absolutely out of the question. There is no reason to subject someone, who was the victim of a theft, to further punishment. At most, the very most, this should be a summary offense.

Five I’d be willing to talk about.

Six, no way. Just lending Bitter a handgun to carry is technically illegal in this state. I’d be willing to trade that for some significant changes in UFA’s transfer provisions.

Seven, no. Lying on a form is not a violent crime.

For eight, it seems to me that making false statements to police is already unlawful, but it’s not a violent crime. No go on prohibited person status for that offense.

Head over to Bruce’s for a must watch video.

Here’s what I sent along:

Greetings,

I’m writing in regards to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives continuing efforts to revoke a federal firearms license from an Twin Falls, Idaho dealer known as “Red’s Trading Post” for what amount of minor paperwork issues, that, from my understanding, amount to 0.4% paperwork.

As a taxpayer, I would prefer BATFE concentrate its efforts on pursuing criminal trafficking of firearms, and not spend limited resources fighting in court to revoke licenses of firearms dealers who are making an honest effort to navigate the admittedly complex maze of federal gun laws and regulations.

Sebastian
Langhorne, PA

Yes, I signed my real name, not my pseudonym. Basic, to the point, not to long. Let’s them know we’re concerned. As much as I would like to say “I’d prefer ATF go **** themselves” that approach doesn’t tend to work very well. Let them know we’re watching. If there’s anything bureaucrats don’t like it’s the spotlight shining on their activities.

If you make it too long, or just drone on about the second amendment, or something like that, they’ll just trash it.  I know this seems hard to believe, but government bureaucrats don’t generally tend to care too much about your constitutional rights.