LIFE AFTER HB 1845?

[imperialism2024]

I'd like to see the LTCF requirement for open carry in a vehicle and Philadelphia removed. We already have decent preemption in the state, very few places off-limits to carry, and unlicensed open carry on foot outside of the most dangerous city in the state. Making unlicensed open carry fully legal would be a reasonable next step.

Granted, Alaska-style carry would be best, but I think unlicensed concealed carry is the next step after this.

ETA: Not to mention that this would make the importance of the "character" clause less relevant. If your LTCF gets pulled, you can just OC everywhere until the revocation appeal hearing takes place. And with Alaska-style, you obviously wouldn't even need a LTCF to conceal...

[ErSwnn]

Call me a dreamer but I'd like to see us be able to own any sort of gun we want. Once investigated on a national level (all states) and confirmed legal to own firearms we are issued a document attesting to this and are free to go about our business as we wish. No restrictions. Carry as you please. The only caveat I'd agree to is a safety and proficency class/test. Man, I'd give my middle nut for that.

But living in this imperfect world, I'd be happy to see a hearing requirement for LTCF revocation.

[knight0334]

I think Stand Your Ground with civil protections will probably be back on the table.

I'm sure some compromises will need to be made on it like stiffer penalties for some other offenses sorta how HB1845 was helped with the violence against officers section and with 2005's HB1717 PFA requirements.

Pro-gun bills are a tough sell to anti-gun and middle-of-the-road legislators without having some sort of tack-on that they pretty much all agree upon.

I really dont see decriminalizing concealed carry(Vermont) or going Alaskan style happening anytime in my lifetime here in PA.

[imperialism2024]

Originally Posted by ErSwnn

Call me a dreamer but I'd like to see us be able to own any sort of gun we want. Once investigated on a national level (all states) and confirmed legal to own firearms we are issued a document attesting to this and are free to go about our business as we wish. No restrictions. Carry as you please. The only caveat I'd agree to is a safety and proficency class/test. Man, I'd give my middle nut for that.

But living in this imperfect world, I'd be happy to see a hearing requirement for LTCF revocation.

The only problem there is that it creates another front on which to fight the war to recognize the Second Amendment.

As it stands now, on the "federal" level, we have the following fronts for regulation: which guns we can and cannot own; which ammo we can and cannot own; age limits; level of adjudication for one's prior acts; and where we cannot carry guns. So far, "safety" is not a topic that "federal" law regulates, and it is one of the few aspects of the Second Amendment that is left to the discretion of the states. It would be dangerous to introduce this front because, as we all know, what the government giveth the government can taketh away.

But that's purely academic. Short of another bloody revolution, we will not see a rollback of infringements on the "federal" level. Hence the importance of working at the state level.

[Pennywise]

Originally Posted by Damage control

We need the character clause the sheriffs use to revoke LTCF revisited requiring a hearing in front of a judge to revoke / deny.


DC

I think the charachter clause should be removed alltogether. Not just with revocation but when applying also.You are either a prohibited person or your not. End of story. Same with revocation. You either broke the law or you did'nt. A sheriffs OPINION does not belong in state law.

[glockman22]

Originally Posted by doug

Castle Doctrine is Next

Yes,i was wondering when someone was going to say stand your ground castle doctrine..also another one for me would be carry on school property.
k-12..those two would be my choices next..

[ErSwnn]

Originally Posted by imperialism2024

The only problem there is that it creates another front on which to fight the war to recognize the Second Amendment.

As it stands now, on the "federal" level, we have the following fronts for regulation: which guns we can and cannot own; which ammo we can and cannot own; age limits; level of adjudication for one's prior acts; and where we cannot carry guns. So far, "safety" is not a topic that "federal" law regulates, and it is one of the few aspects of the Second Amendment that is left to the discretion of the states. It would be dangerous to introduce this front because, as we all know, what the government giveth the government can taketh away.

But that's purely academic. Short of another bloody revolution, we will not see a rollback of infringements on the "federal" level. Hence the importance of working at the state level.

You need to go re-read what I said. In a hypothetical that will never happen the idea of just one clearance for unlimited possession would be a long way closer to the 2A than we are now.