Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

New Anti-man/Anti-gun law in PA

Discussion in 'Legal' started by Tall Man, Feb 23, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Tall Man

    Tall Man Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    233
    New Concealed permit costs in PA

    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.
     
    Last edited: Feb 23, 2006
  2. geekWithA.45

    geekWithA.45 Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2003
    Messages:
    9,056
    Location:
    SouthEast PA
    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.
     
  3. Steve in PA

    Steve in PA Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2002
    Messages:
    2,574
    Location:
    NE PA
    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.
     
  4. Tall Man

    Tall Man Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    233
    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
     
  5. tellner

    tellner member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2004
    Messages:
    2,104
    Location:
    Oregon
    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?
     
  6. Tall Man

    Tall Man Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    233
    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
     
  7. tellner

    tellner member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2004
    Messages:
    2,104
    Location:
    Oregon
    Fair enough. I disagree on several levels, but your intent is clear.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page