[gunsmith]

Firearms group warns
of 'gun grabbing' bill
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38551
But Pennsylvania official says legislation actually expands owners' rights

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: May 19, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern


By Ron Strom
© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com


A bill pending in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives meant to clarify the rules law enforcement follows when enforcing a "protection from abuse" order, or PFA, has a leading gun-rights organization crying foul, while a Republican official defends the proposal as having the blessing of the National Rife Association.

The legislation, House Bill 2403, redefines the definition of a "dating relationship" and sets out provisions for how and when the subject of a PFA order must relinquish his or her firearms. PFAs are issued when a judge believes an alleged victim of domestic abuse is in danger.

Gun Owners of America, or GOA, has warned its members about the bill, which was passed out of the House Judiciary Committee unanimously May 10.

If an order is secured under the bill, the gun-rights organization says, "You have 24 hours to turn in all your guns and no immediate right to appeal. Furthermore, it is a crime for you to transfer your guns to a neighbor for safekeeping, and you are required to reimburse the state for taking your guns away!"

Continued the group in a statement: "In the name of 'political correctness,' this bill would allow an 'ex parte' (one party 'star chamber') protective order to be entered against you by anyone in a 'dating relationship' with you (sections 6108 (a) (7) (i) (A) and 6102)."

Comparing the plan to something out of Nazi Germany, the group decries the bill's power to strip Pennsylvanians of their firearms and urges members in the state to contact their representatives urging a "no" vote.

"You don't have to violate the court's order to be sent away to prison for six months," the statement continued. "If you just 'engage in a pattern or practice that [the court finds] indicates continued risk of harm,' you can be imprisoned for up to six months. And you are explicitly prohibited from receiving a jury trial before being sent to jail (section 6113.1(b) (3)).

"Even in the Orwellian world of leftist feminism, where legislators do what they're told to do by the politically correct, the lack of fundamental due process embodied in this legislation is breathtaking."

According to Michael Schwoyer, chief counsel to the Pennsylvania House Judiciary Committee, however, the gun-rights group has gone off half-cocked.

"This bill is not anti-gun at all," Schwoyer told WND. "It's anti-domestic abuse."

He says part of the bill actually softens regulations under current federal law regarding when firearms owned by the subject of a PFA are relinquished.

"We don't go as far as the feds do" when it comes to when guns must be relinquished, Schwoyer says. The Pennsylvania law requires a 24-hour wait after the order goes into effect, whereas federal law enforcement can take away firearms immediately.

The attorney also defended the expansion of the definition of a "dating relationship" in the bill.

"The committee felt that if someone was in a dating relationship and they're being abused, they should be afforded the opportunity to request that the court enter an order providing them protection," Schwoyer said, "whether or not they have been intimate, which is what current Pennsylvania law requires."

In other words, the bill would not require the person seeking protection from stating that he or she was having sex with the alleged abuser.

"The bill would allow the judge to determine if the victim needed protection without focusing on whether there was a sexual relationship between the parties," he said.

Schwoyer said the "ex parte" aspect of the bill is already in state law and that the bill actually makes changes to the procedure to expand defendants' rights.

He says "at the request of gun owners," the bill was changed to make the length of time from the initial ex parte order to a hearing 10 business days instead of just 10 days to give gun owners more time if they want to transfer guns from their ownership.

Schwoyer claims the bill tries to save gun owners money by giving defendants the option of turning firearms over to a licensed gun dealer in lieu of turning them over to law enforcement, and he emphasizes not all PFAs have a firearm-relinquishment aspect to them.

Rebutting GOA's contention the bill takes a way due process, Schwoyer said, "There are no due-process violations in this bill. The only changes to procedures over current law actually all provide additional safeguards to the defendant."

The attorney says the bill was introduced at the request of law-enforcement officials because there was confusion about how to execute Protection from Abuse orders.

When asked about what gun-rights groups the bill's sponsors have worked with, Schwoyer replied, "We've specifically worked with the NRA. The NRA does not oppose this legislation," adding that GOA "thinks the NRA is weak."

He says many of the e-mail legislators have received have come from a website called packing.org.

Schwoyer, who is under the employ of the House Republican Caucus, was not sure when the bill would be voted on by the full House of Representatives.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ron Strom is a news editor for WorldNetDaily.com.

[Hkmp5sd]

So what does the current law state? Is this bill better than what is already in place or worse?

[gunsmith]

I can't make heads or tails out of this,thats why I posted it here.

[R.H. Lee]

So, if you own any guns, don't date.
If you date, get rid of your guns.

or....

ignore the law and do the Ghandi passive resistance thing


or.......


soap box, ballot box


or...........


ammo box. Your choice.

[X-out]

The NRA does not oppose this legislation," adding that GOA "thinks the NRA is weak."


Any idea of the NRA's actual position? I agree with the above assessment, but would, of course, be willing to reconsider in light of additional facts, which is why I ask.

In the interest of full disclosure, I'm a life member of GOA and a former NRA member (but a current ISRA member) primarily because of the above types of compromises by the NRA.

[Standing Wolf]

...the lack of fundamental due process embodied in this legislation is breathtaking.

Unfortunately, there's nothing breathtaking about it. It's more of the same, not a new development. The Fourth Amendment means almost nothing.

[Stebalo]

There was a good thread about this issue over at .packing.org (http://www.packing.org/talk/thread.jsp?talk_thread=25684) including one users corropondance with a PA state legislator.

Basically it sounds like the NRA while not supporting the bill, hasn't allocated any resources to oppose it. The NRA often seems to rub some people the wrong way in the way they pick and choose their battles. I try to give them the benefit of the doubt and consider them as pragmatists trying to stay mainstream. I support them not because I expect them to fight every local battle for me, but when it counts, they have great power and resources to make things happen. I especially like the NRA News initiative in light of campaign finance reform. It is especially important I think to also support the smaller Second Amendment Civil Rights organizations such as GOA, SAS, and JPFO as well as local level NRA organizations.

[Brett Bellmore]

"There are no due-process violations in this bill."

Sadly, that's more or less true; All due process requires is that the government screw you over in the manner specified by a law, rather than making things up as it goes along. Laws don't violate "due process" unless they give officials a LOT of arbitrary discretion.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I think the real question here is whether it is an improvement over existing law or not? If the existing law is as bad as described in this article, then it seems to me like the proposed bill does add more protections at the trade of broadening the number of people who can level accusations to begin with.

[geekWithA.45]

I've given this bill a quick skim...

Momentarilly laying aside the issues of protection order abuse and the expansion of people to whom protection orders may apply/those allowed to abuse protection orders,

It seems that there are two potential traps in it.

The first is the charging of unspecified fees for firearms storage, with payment of such fees being necessary for return of said firearms.

This will eventually be abused by gun bigotted districts, like PHL. I'd not be surprised if they tried to charge $100/day, resulting in de-facto confiscation.

The second is the explicit prevention of jury trials for "indirect criminal contempt", an offense I don't completely understand at this point.

PA's got some pretty strong support for jury trials in its constitution, I'm going to be poking into the next layer over the next couple of days.

[F4GIB]

So you date her once.
Decide she's not worth your time or money.
And she can retaliate by getting a Order for Protection because she sat through a movie with you.
This is a MAJOR extension of this ex-parte extortion device into the most casual of relationships. Current law requires a much deeper relationship before she can seek a court order.