Jump to Content
Pennsylvania Firearm Owners Association

Archive for 2010

PAFOA Members Help Frustrate MAIG in the Southeast

The “Lost and Stolen” ordinances that have been introduced by Mayors Against Illegal Guns and CeaseFire PA, in communities around the Commonwealth, have come to the Southeast. But we’re happy to report these ordinances, which are illegal, and violate state preemption, have run into some trouble. That trouble is gun owners.

We’re very proud of some of the work of our individual members in helping to frustrate and defeat the passage of virtually all of the ordinances that have been introduced in the new year. First in Radnor, which has tabled the bill for now. On the same day CeaseFire Pennsylvania was pushing for the ordinance in Radnor, Mayors Against Illegal Guns pushed Lost and Stolen in Hatboro. Hatboro has rejected the ordinance in favor of a resolution, which they will be hearing Monday March 22nd. We still oppose the resolution, which urges the General Assembly to pass a statewide law, but we’ve made progress. Ambler Borough decided not to pursue an ordinance a few weeks ago. This week Swarthmore, Pennsylvania has decided to table its Lost and Stolen ordinance.

There is still much work to do here, but we just want to take time to thank our members who put so much time and energy into helping organize other gun owners to fight these ordinances. We particularly want to thank those members who were residents of these municipalities who showed up to speak out against the ordinance to their local elected officials. If we can replicate this excellent example of organization and motivation across the Commonwealth, perhaps we can begin to push Bloomberg’s Mayors group back to New York City where it belongs.

Posted by
Picture of Daniel Pehrson
Daniel Pehrson
Posted on
March 12 2010 7:13:56 PM
Categories
Topics

Voting for the Bench

Many interest groups make the point in presidential election years that it’s not just a candidate’s personal views on issues that matter, but also concern for who is appointed to the judiciary. Rarely has the need to pay attention to these consequences been so obvious for gun owners as the last week.

The obvious issue is the Supreme Court and McDonald v. Chicago. Yes, we will all wait as the Justices deliberate and issue their final decision on how the Second Amendment will be incorporated. But for political junkies, who didn’t hold their breath as they read the headline generated from rumors that Chief Justice John Roberts would step down? (For more information about how that rumor was generated from a 1L class at Georgetown to headlines, read this account.) If the rumor had proved to be true, suddenly the Heller 5 would be no more, and the litigation that will likely define the contours of the Second Amendment would be at risk since the likely replacement would not be friendly to our rights.

Another reason for gun owners to be concerned was on display at the Huffington Post this week. Former federal judge H. Lee Sarokin wrote about the recent issues with carry in Starbucks and put his real feelings about the right to bear arms on the record. His perception of those who carry firearms for protection is a stereotypical and disconnected vision of uneducated, racist, and trigger happy men. While we are fortunate that Judge Sarokin has been off of the bench for more than a decade, the idea that more appointees like him may still be deciding future Second Amendment cases is disturbing. (Judge Sarokin was appointed by President Carter to the United States District Court (N.J.) and elevated to the United States Court of Appeals (3rd Cir.) by President Clinton.)

While most voters only think about the Supreme Court when they think about judicial concerns at the ballot box, Judge Sarokin is a reminder that federal appointments at various levels can make a difference in issues we care about. Once the McDonald decision does come down, it will leave many detailed questions about the permissible scope of gun control laws to be answered by lower courts. However, those appointments rarely receive the scrutiny and attention of Supreme Court nominees.

Posted by
Picture of Christie C.
Christie C.
Posted on
March 06 2010 2:46:13 PM
Categories
Topics

Oral Arguments heard in McDonald v. City of Chicago, IL

Oral arguments were heard today by the Supreme Court in McDonald v. City of Chicago, IL. At the center of the case is Chicago’s effective ban on handgun ownership. Several other issues are addressed in the petition as well. These include mandatory firearm registration, mandatory reporting of changes to registration status of any firearm,  and the rule which renders any firearm whose registration has lapsed no longer eligible for registration.

Lawyers from both side were given the chance to argue their sides before the Justices today, but the overwhelming public opinion is that the Justices will side with the same division as the Heller opinion in a 5 to 4 decision. In Heller, Justices Scalia, Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas and Alito sided in favor of second amendment rights while the remaining Justices dissented. The case is important to both sides as it will have sweeping effects on the ability of states to restrict citizens second amendment rights.

Filed on the same day the Heller decision was decided, this case differs, if only slightly. Washington, D.C. , the center of the Heller case, is of direct federal jurisdiction rather than a city with local and state jurisdictions applying. During arguments today, the divide remained

Link to the case briefs: McDonald v. City of Chicago, IL, Docket No. 08-1521

The coverage is wide, but here are some relevant articles:

By its conclusion, it seemed plain that the court would extend a 2008 decision that first identified an individual right to own guns to strike down Chicago’s gun control law, widely considered the most restrictive in the nation.

New York Times: Supreme Court Still Divided On Guns

The Supreme Court seemed likely to rule for the first time that gun possession is fundamental to American freedom, a move that would give federal judges power to strike down state and local weapons laws for infringing on Second Amendment rights.

The Wall Street Journal: New Ammunition for Gun Rights

To no one’s surprise, the justices gave no sign that they’ve changed their minds in the past two years. Several talked as if the issue when they rule won’t be whether to restrain gun control nationwide but how much room to leave for “reasonable” state and local limits. And that, indeed, is the important question.

Our view on the Second Amendment: Extend gun rights, but leave room for reasonable limits

Posted by
Picture of Kris R.
Kris R.
Posted on
March 03 2010 4:22:19 PM
Categories
Topics

Pennsylvania’s Role in McDonald

Gun owners across the country will be watching the McDonald case closely on Tuesday. Though, admittedly, the pro-liberty folks in areas with heavy gun control will likely be paying more attention to the arguments. Because Pennsylvania doesn’t have the extreme gun control conditions of Chicago and we have protections under the state constitution, we’re unlikely to see a direct impact from the case in the Keystone State.

However, never let it be said that Pennsylvania doesn’t have a voice in the arguments before the Supreme Court on Tuesday. In fact, we’re lucky to have more than 30 pro-gun lawmakers standing up for our rights in this case.

At the federal level, 15 members of our Congressional delegation signed on to a brief in support of the law-abiding citizens who would like to own a handgun in Chicago. This total includes both Senators and every member of Congress except the Philadelphia-area representatives, and those representing Pittsburgh and Erie.

Coming down to the state level, the most high profile supporter of the McDonald case is Attorney General Tom Corbett who signed a brief with more than three dozen other Attorneys General. However, it’s easy to miss the state legislators who were pro-active in signing on to various briefs in favor of the plaintiffs.

Five female lawmakers joined a brief outlining the concerns of women who face state and local governments that seek to limit their right to self-protection. In addition, one Senator and 11 Representatives put their names on a general state legislator brief that points out a clear direction from the Supreme Court in favor of incorporation will better serve the states and help to secure the fundamental rights of their citizens.

So if you have time on Tuesday, take a few moments to thank the following lawmakers for standing up for our rights. I’ve included links to social media homes where you can publicly thank them if you have an account:

Federal
Senator Arlen Specter
*Twitter
*Facebook

Senator Bob Casey
*Facebook

Representative Jason Altmire
*Facebook

Representative Christopher Carney
*Facebook

Representative Charlie Dent
*Facebook

Representative Jim Gerlach
*Twitter
*Facebook

Representative Tim Holden

Representative Paul Kanjorski
*Twitter
*Facebook

Representative Patrick Murphy
*Facebook

Tim Murphy
*Twitter
*Facebook

Representative John Murtha

Representative Joe Pitts
*Twitter
*Facebook

Representative Todd Platts
*Facebook

Representative Bill Shuster
*Twitter

Representative Glenn Thompson
*Twitter
*Facebook

Posted by
Picture of Christie C.
Christie C.
Posted on
March 01 2010 12:17:16 PM
Categories
Topics

New Laws Concerning Carry in National Parks go into Effect

On February 22, 2010 the new law allowing citizens to carry firearms in national parks in accordance to state laws and procedures went into effect.

Visitors may possess firearms within a national park unit provided they comply with federal, state, and local laws. Please remember that federal law prohibits firearms in certain park facilities and buildings. These places should be marked with signs at public entrances.

More info and list of parks per the National Park Service:
http://www.nps.gov/nero/firearms/PA/index.htm

Parks:

Allegheny Portage Railroad National Historic Site

Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area

Deshler-Morris House

Edgar Allan Poe National Historic Site

Eisenhower National Historic Site

Flight 93 National Memorial

Fort Necessity National Battlefield

Friendship Hill National Historic Site

Gettysburg National Military Park

Gloria Dei Church

Hopewell Furnace National Historic Site

Independence National Historical Park

Johnstown Flood National Memorial

Steamtown National Historic Site

Thaddeus Kosciuszko National Memorial

Upper Delaware Scenic and Recreational River

Valley Forge National Historical Park

Posted by
Picture of Jason E.
Jason E.
Posted on
February 26 2010 11:14:10 AM
Categories
Topics

Election Season is Officially Open

Today is the opening day for political candidates around the state to truly launch their campaigns. You may see them out gathering signatures and shaking hands. Here’s a closer look at what to expect in the next few weeks, and how it matters in the big picture.

Read more

Posted by
Picture of Christie C.
Christie C.
Posted on
February 16 2010 3:44:43 PM
Categories
Topics

Useful Lessons from the Field

Fighting gun control in real life when it comes to your backyard is very different than talking about it online – a lesson that many active PAFOA members have learned over the years. But for those who haven’t had to act locally yet, here are some tips gleaned from previous experience.

Read more

Posted by
Picture of Christie C.
Christie C.
Posted on
February 13 2010 1:06:38 PM
Categories
Topics

Open Letter to the Radnor Board of Commisioners Regarding Lost & Stolen

To Members of the Radnor Board of Commissioners:

I write to you as the Founder & President of Pennsylvania Firearm Owners Association, an organization representing tens of thousands of gun owners across the Commonwealth, including many in Radnor. We share concerns about the ordinance you may discuss and vote on tonight brought forth by CeasefirePA, as noted in your published agenda.

The so-called “Lost-and-Stolen” firearms ordinance is illegal under current state law. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held 14 years ago, in the case of Ortiz v. Commonwealth that “The General Assembly, not city councils, is the proper forum for the imposition of [firearms] regulation.” Today, the majority of voters from all parties support that decision, as was reflected in a recent statewide poll.

As you will likely hear from many gun owners tonight, the legal issues that will be created with this ordinance will likely result in costly litigation for the city should you pass and enforce it. These are financial burdens that few city officials will find easy to justify to hardworking taxpayers. However, the members of PAFOA would like to offer an alternative to such expenses. Rather than passing a toothless ordinance designed only to harass gun owners, consider diverting what you plan to budget for the enforcement costs and legal defense to general law enforcement funds. Focus on reducing all crime and fully funding investigative teams who can help put dangerous criminals behind bars.

There are already many federal and state laws on the books that target straw purchasing and other types of criminal gun trafficking. Using what limited resources the town has to fully fund law enforcement needs will help bring the full weight of current laws – all of which are far more strict – down on those who pose a true danger to Radnor’s residents.

We ask that you either table the ordinance indefinitely or take a solid vote against a redundant, meaningless ordinance which will ultimately cost the city far more than its taxpayers can afford in these tight times.

Sincerely,
Daniel Pehrson
Founder & President
Pennsylvania Firearm Owners Association

Posted by
Picture of Daniel Pehrson
Daniel Pehrson
Posted on
February 08 2010 1:37:29 PM
Categories
Topics

Choosing the Political Fight instead of Law Enforcement

According to a report by the Philadelphia Daily News, police leadership and prosecutors are upset that law-abiding gun owners are seeking licenses to carry from states that are more strict and uniform in their issuing practices. In an effort to create controversy where little evidence exists, the Daily News embraces sensational hypotheticals that, when broken down, truly reflect upon the dysfunction within Philadelphia’s criminal justice system.

For example, Lt. Lisa King cites concerns that applicants to out-of-state licensing authorities might have been arrested, but never convicted of any crimes. To her, such a situation seemingly demands the denial of Constitutional rights without any effort by authorities to prove guilt. Fortunately for those of us who believe in the rule of law, our justice system is one based on a presumption of innocence until the state can prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury of our peers.

District Attorney Seth Williams, whose office frequently refuses to process cases of known criminals who are disqualified from owning – let along carrying – a gun, announced plans for his “legislation unit” to look into the matter. Residents of Philadelphia might ask why their tax dollars are being used to lobby rather than prosecute those who have actually committed crimes.

As initially mentioned to the Daily News reporter, PAFOA has firsthand accounts of those who have faced the abusive and arbitrary licensing requirements of the City. When licenses of the victims are regularly revoked simply because a home or car is broken into, it is clear that the Police Department would rather pick on easier targets – those who seek to follow the law – than investigate cases of actual criminals.

Attorney General Tom Corbett’s spokesperson came to the defense of those who opt for an out-of-state permit, noting that the requirements for Florida are actually more strict than Pennsylvania. Though that did not stop the anti-gun group, CeasefirePA from blaming him for the practice. In an admission to the paper, the organization said this is an opening salvo in a planned attack on the Attorney General in the upcoming gubernatorial elections.

Finally, the article does reveal that the Police Department plans to work closely with the District Attorney on the issue. One might assume this means they will work together to prosecute more cases against violent criminals. However, rather than concentrating on getting dangerous people off the streets of Philadelphia, King announced a plan to subpoena records from Florida in order to target the Philadelphia residents who have lawfully obtained a permit from the state. It speaks volumes that the City leaders would rather use resources and manpower to target those who can pass multiple background checks and have appropriate firearms training rather than focusing on putting more hardened criminals behind bars.

Posted by
Picture of Daniel Pehrson
Daniel Pehrson
Posted on
February 05 2010 4:28:42 PM
Categories
Topics

Philadelphia Daily News Smears Florida/PA Reciprocity

Many of you have no doubt seen this article in the Philadelphia Daily News, outlining the completely lawful practice of Pennsylvanians obtaining concealed carry licenses from the State of Florida, and using that license to carry in Pennsylvania, a “loophole.” We are currently working on a more detailed rebuttal to this article, but in the mean time we thought we would share with you our statement to the Daily News reporter when we were asked to comment on this issue:

As most gun owners in Pennsylvania know, owning or carrying a firearm in the city of Philadelphia can be risky given the history of abuses by the city’s police department. Under current PPD policy, law abiding carry license holders have had their license revoked for being victims of theft, including having their houses broken into. At PAFOA, we’ve also had reports of the police department illegally revoking permits of members issued by other counties when the victim’s car was broken into while visiting the city.

In fact, the abuse of license holders is reflected by the PPD’s inexplicable permit revocation rate of nearly 12%, while every other county (including Allegheny which contains Pittsburgh) is well below 1%. When the stats are run, Philadelphia is responsible for  30-40% of all carry permit revocations in the entire state each year.

As a result, it is not surprising that some gun owners may opt for the more uniform standards of another state license over the discriminatory abuses of the Philadelphia Police Department. In times of tighter budgets, some gun owners may also opt to carry only one license from a state which is more widely recognized than ours instead of getting multiple.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to ask.

Posted by
Picture of Daniel Pehrson
Daniel Pehrson
Posted on
February 05 2010 1:10:08 PM
Categories
Topics
Older Articles Newer Articles