New Anti-man/Anti-gun law in PA


PDA






Tall Man
February 23, 2006, 12:53 PM
http://www2.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/BI/BT/2005/0/HB1717P2918.pdf

In addition to driving up the cost of a Concealed Carry permit by $6.00 (pp. 19-20), this new legislation speaks to those folks who are subject to a Protection From Abuse (PFA) order. They must surrender their firearms.

TM

Edited to remove inaccurate and extraneous bits.

If you enjoyed reading about "New Anti-man/Anti-gun law in PA" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
geekWithA.45
February 23, 2006, 01:30 PM
Actually, it does not mandate surrender of arms to the State.

It provides for relinquishment of arms for the duration of a PFA to a number of possible entities, which could include a friend, and deals with the mechanics of how this is to happen.


This law was originally proposed a couple of years ago, in a significantly more heinous form. Originally, the scope of the PFA was much wider than it is as enacted, and the arms were required to be surrendered to the state, who was indemnified from having to care for them, could charge a fee for storing them, and wasn't obligated to return them until the fee had been cleared.

The issue of invalid/vindictive/abusive PFAs pre-exists this statute, and is a separate subject.

Steve in PA
February 23, 2006, 02:02 PM
The order has to be for the firearms to be turned in. If not contained in the order, then the weapons aren't touched. Nothing new.

Tall Man
February 23, 2006, 02:15 PM
Geekwitha45, I stand corrected regarding the entity(ies) to whom the firearms may be surrendered. My original post was prepared in haste.

I would politely suggest, however, that the PFA issues are part and parcel of this legislation...even if the subject predates HB1717.

Thanks.

TM

tellner
February 23, 2006, 02:44 PM
I find it interesting that you titled this "Anti Man". Nothing in the language of the law suggests that it is different for men and women. Is it because gun owner == man in your view?

Tall Man
February 23, 2006, 04:55 PM
Tellner, the title of this thread was a conscious and intentional choice. Yes, gun owner = man, generally,in my view. I've too much practical experience to believe otherwise. Exceptions are pleasant and rare.

Nothing in the language of the law suggests that it the law will be applied differently for men and women. Quite true. However, it is women who overwhelmingly file PFAs, and it is men who own the overwhelming majority of guns in this country. One need'nt look long or far - especially here - to reach this reasonable conclusion.

The "Anti-man" qualifier stems from the ease with which the predominant filers of PFAs may swear out the same with a modicum (if not utter absence) of proof against the accused. Given the damage that may be wrought by a baseless PFA, it is galling that the status quo process is allowed to continue. Sad and justifiably angry stories are only a Google search away.

TM

tellner
February 23, 2006, 05:16 PM
Fair enough. I disagree on several levels, but your intent is clear.

If you enjoyed reading about "New Anti-man/Anti-gun law in PA" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!