Joe Grace and Phil Goldsmith, the two people behind CeaseFire PA, are trying their level best to minimize the damage potential of McDonald:
While support for the reporting of lost or stolen handguns grows, hundreds of Pennsylvania police chiefs have come out in favor of another reasonable reform to close a loophole in state law that allows state residents to sidestep law enforcement and obtain permits from Florida to carry concealed guns, even if their applications were denied in Pennsylvania.
This loophole lets people with criminal backgrounds get out-of-state permits to carry guns in the commonwealth, even after state authorities determine they shouldn’t be allowed to do so.
None of those laws have been upheld on the merits. The suits were dismissed because of standing and ripeness. In other words, they have to prosecute someone for failing to report a gun before the law can be challenged. To date, none of the 45 cities and towns that have passed this law have prosecuted a single person under them — laws they claim are critical for prosecuting criminals.
There’s also not a single state that issues a license to carry a firearm that doesn’t perform a criminal background check on applicants. None. The idea that hardened criminals, with extensive records, are getting permits to carry from other states is just nuts. We could solve much of this problem with universal reciprocity, but you won’t hear them supporting that idea.
“There’s also not a single state that issues a license to carry a firearm that doesn’t perform a criminal background check on applicants. None.”
How does Arizona fit into that description? And what about all the states that allow open carry?
Of course where a license is required, they do a background check. The only problem is for many of these activities, no license is required and therefore no background check is done.
mikeb, Arizona does issue licenses to carry and preforms background checks; it just doesn’t require them to carry inside Arizona.
Moreover, how does your point help your case? How does the ability to carry without a license in Arizona have any effect on other states, or, indeed, anywhere at all? If a criminal wanted to carry his illegally-obtained heater in California or New Mexico, how do Arizona’s laws have any effect whatsoever on his behavior? Heck, how do Arizona’s laws have any effect? Isn’t he gonna do it regardless of what the law says he can do?
I just don’t understand where this mindset comes from; how can anyone believe that requiring a license to perform a certain activity will meaningfully dissuade those who are out to break the law anyway? The only people it affects are those who already generally want to follow the law and are willing to jump through the required hoops. And if they’re willing to do this, then are they really worth worrying about?
“How does Arizona fit into that description? And what about all the states that allow open carry? ”
How do you important licenseless carry (either open or closed) from one state to another? You can’t. The issue here is Pennsylvania residents carrying under an out-of-state permit instead of going through the PA license to carry process.
It’s hard for people who have never carried a gun before to understand how easy it is for people with criminal intent to get away with it. In all my years of carrying I’ve never once been asked for my LTC because someone spotted me carrying.
We will continue to see stuff like this, until we cease seeing stuff like this:
Joyce Foundation grant from 2010:
Ceasefire Pennsylvania Education Fund
“To support the engagement of Pennsylvania citizens at the grassroots level in forty targeted municipalities.”
$50,000.00
mikeb302000 … your point is downright laughable.
“How do you important licenseless carry (either open or closed) from one state to another?”
Doh! How do you import licenseless carry from one state to another? What was I thinking when I typed that.
MikeB302000,
The only problem is for many of these activities, no license is required and therefore no background check is done.
You are right.
No background check is done before someone can buy a camera.
No background check is done before someone can buy a computer.
No background check is done before someone can carry a camera in public.
No background check is done before someone can publish a blog, build a website, or send an email.
Since you are so interested in public safety, surely you can see we need to close the “KYDDY PRON” (deliberate misspelling to keep traffic down) loophole here, right?
Unless there is a reason why you don’t want to close the “KYDDY PRON” loophole, eh?
Surely it is reasonable to have everyone get a background check, even if they are– maybe especially, if they are in a foreign county before they buy a computer or camera.
What do you say Sparky, want to get government permission before you blog?
Maybe they would approve your background check or maybe they would deny it because you don’t have a legitimate need to blog.
What do you say Sparky, want to get permission before you take pictures of your own family at Thanksgiving?
See MikeB302000, not one of those activities would stop the horrible crime of “KYDDY PRON” !! Not one. Not one would even slow it down in the slightest.
But it would make you a criminal if you didn’t comply with the arbitrary, capricious, and costly licensing requirements.
It would keep millions of people from enjoying a great hobby, from capturing precious memories on film, from even being able to help solve crimes.
That’s right Sparky, cell phone cameras wouldn’t be excused!! Especially not since those can be carried concealed.
The very acts designed to reduce crime are not helping and are likely hurting efforts to stop crime.
Even by the most conservative estimates, there are 108,000 defensive gun uses per year. Over 1/5th of the number of reported violent crimes— and you want to put more roadblocks in the way of people protecting themselves without being able to show evidence that gun control laws reduce crime.