PROPOSED GUN REGISTRATION

[baetis]

Not fishing, I know ...but, a lot of us do both!!
House bill No. 760 is proposing to have all PA guns registered at a cost of $10/gun and reregistered each year... and the owner registered with an annual ID card. Additionally, if your application is rejected your guns will be confiscated.

 

[JackM]

I am absolutely certain that what you have said about this proposed legislation is misleading at best and outright false at worst. When posting matters that you think may be of interest to the board members and likely to rouse strong opinions, it is advisable to provide a link or source for the info. Otherwise, the discussion that ensues will take a page and a half before anyone is commenting on the actual issue at stake.

 

[tomgamber]

House bill 760

Actually I didn't find anything "inaccurate" in what he wrote.

I don't even own a gun but this sound, to me, a little excessive.

Though, as JackM would say...BKIMIHNIWITA

 

[BigHink66]

http://www.legis.state.pa.us/CFDOCS/Legis/PN/Public/btCheck.cfm?txtType=HTM&sessYr=2007&sessInd=0&billBody=H&billTyp=B&billNbr=0760&pn=0881


He speaks the truth!

Write your representative!

 

[JackM]

Well, I looked up the legislation. The Bill has six sponsors only, 4 from Philly and two from Pittsburgh. It is in Committee and may look nothing like what it does now when it comes out.

While it calls for $10 registration and yearly renewal (comparable to a vehicle registration), there is no "annual ID card," but the proposed registration paper is to have a photo of the registered owner.

Finally, there is no provision for confiscation of weapons where permits are rejected. The only reasons for rejection of a registration appear to be where a proposed registered owner: has been convicted of a crime of violence; has been convicted within five years of a drug offense or is ineligible to possess a firearm under any Federal or State law.

A violation of the proposed registration law is a summary offense, as was described here recently, the equivalent of a traffic ticket.

 

[tomgamber]

JackM wrote:

Finally, there is no provision for confiscation of weapons where permits are rejected.

Within three days after notification of a
14 decision unfavorable to the applicant and all time for appeal
15 having expired, the applicant shall surrender to the
16 Pennsylvania State Police the firearm for which the applicant
17 was denied registration.

I'm Just Bill, Yes I'm only a bill..."...c'mon everybody sing along... :lol:

 

[BigHink66]

Look, its bad law, and you shouldn't try and make it seem as if it can just be overlooked and not to worry. There is no room for complacency on issues concerning our rights.

People should at least be aware of the legislature that our elected officials are trying to pass in order to restrict our constitutional rights. Which is a step toward removal of that right.

You are correct, it could look very different by the time it gets voted on! It could be worse.

(h) Denial.--In the event the application is denied, the
8 Pennsylvania State Police shall inform the applicant in writing
9 of the denial. Any applicant who believes that the applicant's
10 application is wrongfully denied may, within ten days after
11 receiving notice of the denial, file a written appeal of the
12 denial in accordance with 2 Pa.C.S. (relating to administrative
13 law and procedure). Within three days after notification of a
14 decision unfavorable to the applicant and all time for appeal
15 having expired, the applicant shall surrender to the
16 Pennsylvania State Police the firearm for which the applicant
17 was denied registration.

A nonrefundable fee of $10 per firearm shall accompany each
18 application for registration of a firearm and renewal of
19 registration of a firearm.

This would cost me close to $300 dollars per year, and there are many others it would cost into the thousands.

 

[JackM]

Yes, "surrender." A distinctly different word in meaning and import from "confiscation." As I said, the original statement was most likely to be misleading at best.

To respond directly above, I did not suggest that the proposed legislation is either good or bad, nor did I suggest that he shouldn't have raised it. i just suggested that he post some info on the source so that people responding could make an informed decision based upon what was actually in the law and also could consider whether this was just some wacky proposal or something that was in the least likely to become law.

 

[BigHink66]

They will have to CONFISCATE mine cause I refuse to pay $10 per application per year.

 

[FarmerDave]

JackM wrote:
Well, I looked up the legislation. The Bill has six sponsors only, 4 from Philly and two from Pittsburgh. It is in Committee and may look nothing like what it does now when it comes out.

While it calls for $10 registration and yearly renewal (comparable to a vehicle registration), there is no "annual ID card," but the proposed registration paper is to have a photo of the registered owner.

It looks to me like the only part of the original message that was "misleading at best and outright false at worst" was the part about an anual ID. He was talking about the bill the way it exists, not the way it will look when it comes out. how the heck do you know now it will come out?

Finally, there is no provision for confiscation of weapons where permits are rejected. The only reasons for rejection of a registration appear to be where a proposed registered owner: has been convicted of a crime of violence; has been convicted within five years of a drug offense or is ineligible to possess a firearm under any Federal or State law. A violation of the proposed registration law is a summary offense, as was described here recently, the equivalent of a traffic ticket.

There may not be a provision for confiscation, but there is a provision for surrendering your firearms of the application comes out unfavorable to the applicant. What do you think will happen if this applicant decides not to surrender those weapons. He can't sell them (covered under a different provision). If this surrender provision stays, do you think a confiscation provision will be added? Before it comes out of course.

You talk about the reason for rejecion. you forgot about this one.

"(3) Is not otherwise ineligible to possess a firearm under any Federal or State law."

That is quite broad. also, what is to stop them from writing new laws? say for instance, state or fed decides everyone need a psycological profile. Or maybe, lets outlaw all handguns. Would they be applicable? It would make it a whole lot easier since they all would be registered. Oops. I mean all the legal ones would be registered.

Any comments about the finger printing?

All that said, I don't see how this could stand up to Constitutional scrutany without a majority of activist judges, so I guess i agree it will probably change quite a bit. just my opinion. But then, i am no lawyer. I read it in plain English, not lawyerese.


So, who exactly is being "misleading at best and outright false at worst" in the conversation? :-D

 

[baetis]

Jack:
Thanks for your "friendly suggestions" on the proper procedures to post. Next time I'll check with you first.

 

[FarmerDave]

Hey Jack, that's bull. You know what you said. If not, go read it again.

"misleading at best and outright false at worst."

That's bull.

 

[JackM]

FarmerDave wrote:

So, who exactly is being "misleading at best and outright false at worst" in the conversation? :-D

Since I did, in fact point out all three proposed disqualifications, you will need to look a bit harder or manufacture something out of what I said to find a falsehood or inaccuracy.

Like criminal charges, you can be accused of anything but eventually the charges must be proved. With legislation, anything can be proposed, but it must also be passed into law. So I think the more reasonable approach to debate on legislative proposals is to have an accurate idea of what is being proposed and to further consider the likelihood of it making it to a floor vote in the form it is proposed-- both legitimate points to discuss and nothing I said suggests otherwise.

 

[FarmerDave]

You got me on that one point, but what about the rest of what I said?

 

[JackM]

baetis wrote:
Jack:
Thanks for your "friendly suggestions" on the proper procedures to post. Next time I'll check with you first.

No need to check with me at all. You can post misleading information anytime you please.

 

[JackM]

FarmerDave wrote:
You got me on that one point, but what about the rest of what I said?

What would you like me to respond to?

Confiscation-- not there now, won't be passed by a long shot.
Fingerprinting-- won't pass.

Anything else?

 

[baetis]

Sure it's only a proposal in commitee and has a long way, if at all, of becoming law...but, it is very disturbing that the discussion is even taking place in the legislature.

 

[FarmerDave]

What was misleading? Be specific. Your earlier explanations didn't make sense. He covered it in a nut shell and only had the anual ID wrong.

OK, what if someone is rejected and does not surrender his or her guns? Does he just get the equivelant of a traffic ticket, and gets to keep his guns?

 

[FarmerDave]

JackM wrote:

FarmerDave wrote:
You got me on that one point, but what about the rest of what I said?

What would you like me to respond to?

Confiscation-- not there now, won't be passed by a long shot.
Fingerprinting-- won't pass.

Anything else?

thanks for the response. I agree, but the whole thing bothers me.

 

[BPS]

I wouldn't get too excited, it's too extremely left for PA.
A few liberals in big cities trying to burn their bras.
I'd be more upset that they even think it would fly, than i would be scared of something really coming of this. in which case, my guns would simply come up missing.