PA - Gun-advocates up in arms over concealed-carry hearings

[Gunreference1]

Gun-advocates up in arms over concealed-carry hearings

By STEPHANIE FARR
Philadelphia Daily News
farrs@phillynews.com 215-854-4225

The audience was armed - literally - at a House Judiciary Committee hearing in Upper Darby yesterday to examine a loophole in the state's concealed-weapons laws.
From short, pudgy, middle-aged men to young, slim ones, gun-rights advocates came packing heat to the hearing about what's become known as the "Florida loophole."

Under Pennsylvania's firearms-reciprocity agreements, the state must recognize "concealed-carry" licenses from certain other states, and vice versa.

The "loophole" is that three of those states - Florida, Utah and New Hampshire - allow out-of state residents to get licenses in their state and through the mail, even if their state has denied them a license or revoked it.

Of the three states, police say that Florida is the biggest problem - it has issued more than 3,100 out-of-state permits to Pennsylvania residents. That number is up from 2,600, when the Daily News first wrote about the issue in February.

In her testimony, Lt. Lisa King, commander of the Philadelphia Police gun-permit unit, said that there is no way to tell if those 3,100 have been denied a permit in Pennsylvania because Florida will not provide police with their names.

"I fundamentally have a problem, that Pennsylvania allows another state to dictate who can carry a concealed-carry permit here and not tell us the names," said state Rep. Josh Shapiro, D-Montgomery. "Whether you're in the NRA or CeaseFire PA . . . we would all be better suited having Pennsylvania laws govern [here]."

State Rep. Bryan Lentz, D-Delaware, who sponsored a bill that would close the loophole, said that the Florida license is basically a "get-out-of-jail-free card."

But gun-rights advocates said that the loophole is necessary because the permit application process, especially in Philadelphia, is too strict.

Brian Grady, Philadelphia deputy district attorney for special operations, noted that 90 percent of concealed-carry applications in the city were approved last year.

"We're talking about giving you a deadly weapon," Grady said. "We're not talking about giving you a Schwinn to ride around the parking lot."

The crux of yesterday's four-hour hearing rested on the fact that, in Pennsylvania, one can be denied a concealed-carry license based on "character and reputation" alone. Therefore, someone with a dozen arrests but no convictions or someone who associates with criminals can be denied, even if they've never been convicted of a crime.

Kim Stolfer, legislative committee chairman for the Allegheny County Sportsman's League, said that the character and reputation clause is "the elimination of the presumption of the right of innocence."

"We will never, ever agree to deny someone a freedom based on an arrest alone," he said.

Stolfer said he'd like to see the character clause eliminated and for character references to be required.

Judah Kocher, 24, of Cochranville, Chester County, who attended the hearing with his wife, his sister and his Springfield Armory XD 45-caliber gun on his hip, said, "I don't want it to be harder; I want it to be easier to protect yourself."

http://www.philly.com/dailynews/loca..._hearings.html

Steve

[Gunreference1]

Guest Column: Have law-abiding citizens lost their constitutional rights?

Published: Sunday, August 29, 2010

By JIM BOWMAN
Times Guest Columnist

This incessant drumbeat, testing not just the will and knowledge of our people but also probing for a weakness in our constitutional guarantees, is really getting old.

In all likelihood, a successful usurpation of our constitutional rights continues to be thwarted by the word “inalienable.” Its definition resembles a traffic light stuck on red to those who would whimsically revise our blessings at birth.

Thomas Jefferson said it best in our Declaration of Independence when laying the foundation to our freedom with the words, “endowed by their Creator” (for emphasis, a capital C), “with certain inalienable rights …”

This distinction acknowledges that our individual rights, of which our Second Amendment is certainly one, are rights inherited at birth from our “Creator.” As such, they are above the corruptive machinery which is so characteristic of big government. Or, as Jefferson termed, above “the mischief of man.” This is the lesson to be studied by those so intent upon altering and ultimately erasing our blessings of freedom.

Apparently, from reading the Web site version of the Daily Times, a state representative by the name of Bryan Lentz follows such an unconstitutional path. While based upon that insidious justification of “good intentions,” it nevertheless is just part of a piecemeal attack designed to culminate with the eventual elimination of our Second Amendment rights. So, I feel compelled to add my two cents from far away Florida since I, too, experienced this unconstitutional abridgement of my rights as a longtime resident of Delaware County.

After carrying a duly licensed weapons permit for five years, I was notified that a renewal application was required. To make a long story short, I was denied my renewal based upon a conviction for “drag racing” in 1968. From April 1995 until April 3, 2000, I was legally licensed to carry a firearm.

Following my denial challenge in Harrisburg, the Pennsylvania State Police mailed a letter dated July 13, 2000, that stated, and I quote, “the decision to deny your request is upheld based upon your conviction in 1968 to VC1041, Drag Racing, defined as a misdemeanor offense, and punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of three years.”

Insultingly, the following sentence was underlined. It informed me that, “Please be advised that regardless of any penalty that you may have received, this decision is based on the maximum penalty you could have received for this offense(s).”

Now, in 2010, all I have to say about this ruling is, “Are you kidding me?” Number one, traffic violations incurring “points” start reducing after one year. Secondly, insurance rates return to normal amounts after five years. Finally, traffic violations are to be expunged from one’s record after seven years.

This denial occurred 32 years after the violation. In addition, since when is a denial to an inalienable right based not upon punishment but what could have been the punishment?

Ten years have passed since my challenge in Harrisburg. I am well into my 60s with only one speeding ticket to my name during that span of time. Prior to my drag racing escapade, I was issued and was qualified with weapons during my two years as a military policeman in the U.S. Army.

Apparently, U.S. Rep. Lentz, D-161, of Swarthmore, places higher value upon the voter appeal aspect verses constitutional guarantees when voicing those anti-gun/anti-carry words. The Times article informed its readers that “Pennsylvania residents who are not eligible for a permit to carry a concealed weapon” are now being targeted since they obtained (legal) permission from another state to do so. Instead of viewing it as a threat, could it be a citizen’s legal option to an abusive law?

I think that the lawmaker from Swarthmore ought to concern himself more with the out-of-control state budget than his targeting of law-abiding citizens who seek self protection.

One other suggestion, if I may. Barring a lawful citizen from exercising his or her inalienable right of self protection, based upon a “could of,” is a crime far worse than the misdemeanor which was originally cited.

Finally, it remains our constitutional duty as law-abiding American citizens to resist illegal and/or immoral laws such as House Bill 2536. Maybe Rep. Lentz should familiarize himself with the proper exercise of authority rather than pandering to the vote. Just another suggestion from far away.

Jim Bowman is a resident of Ormond Beach, Fla.

HB 2536 - http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/...r=2536&pn=3790

http://www.delcotimes.com/articles/2...4859569185.txt

Steve

[O.S.O.K.]

"We're talking about giving you a deadly weapon," Grady said. "We're not talking about giving you a Schwinn to ride around the parking lot."

That right there shows the real problem. These bastards don't know their place and don't understand the Constitution and are not protecting it.

They are not GIVING us shit. These CHL's are just another way to tax a God-given right. The 2A confirms this God-given right and the pricks that pass gun control laws attempt to limit and deny it. And once successful, those charged with enforcing the unConstitutional limits take on the aura of gods themselves - in their minds.

That is the truth.