New Threat in the Senate

[billamj]

While this bill sounds like it has some potential to come down harder on staw purchasers, which we are all in favor of, the verbiage leaves a lot to be desired and would make it a second degree felony to buy a handgun as a gift for a relative.

SENATE BILL

No. 701 Session of 2007

INTRODUCED BY GREENLEAF, WASHINGTON, RAFFERTY, COSTA, BOSCOLA,
O'PAKE, TARTAGLIONE AND C. WILLIAMS, APRIL 2, 2007

REFERRED TO JUDICIARY, APRIL 2, 2007

AN ACT

1 Amending Title 18 (Crimes and Offenses) of the Pennsylvania
2 Consolidated Statutes, further providing for the offense of
3 sale or transfer of firearms; providing for the offense of
4 straw purchases; establishing penalties; and providing for
5 the powers and duties of the Pennsylvania State Police
6 relating to straw purchases.

7 The General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
8 hereby enacts as follows:
9 Section 1. Section 6111(g)(2) of Title 18 of the
10 Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes is amended to read:
11 § 6111. Sale or transfer of firearms.
12 * * *
13 (g) Penalties.--
14 * * *
15 (2) Any person, licensed dealer, licensed manufacturer
16 or licensed importer who knowingly or intentionally sells,
17 delivers or transfers a firearm under circumstances intended
18 to provide a firearm to any person, purchaser or transferee
19 who is unqualified or ineligible to control, possess or use a
20 firearm under this chapter commits a felony of the [third]

1 second degree and shall in addition be subject to revocation
2 of the license to sell firearms for a period of three years.
3 * * *
4 Section 2. Title 18 is amended by adding a section to read:
5 § 6111.6. Straw purchases.
6 (a) Offense defined.--No person, other than a licensed
7 dealer, licensed manufacturer or licensed importer may purchase
8 a firearm knowing or intending that the firearm will thereafter
9 be transferred to another individual.
10 (b) Presumption.--In the absence of:
11 (1) any report by the purchaser to law enforcement
12 authorities that the firearm has been stolen; and
13 (2) any record of a lawful sale of the firearm
14 possession of the firearm, on or after the date of its purchase,
15 by a person other than the purchaser of the firearm shall give
16 rise to a rebuttable presumption that the purchaser, at the time
17 of purchase, knew or intended that the firearm would thereafter
18 be transferred to another individual.
19 (c) Defense.--It is a defense to a violation of this section
20 that the person who purchased the firearm knew or intended that
21 the firearm would thereafter be transferred as a bona fide gift
22 to another individual.
23 (d) Penalties.--A violation of this section is a felony of
24 the second degree.
25 (e) Pennsylvania State Police.--The Pennsylvania State
26 Police shall retain information related to handgun purchases,
27 including the number of handguns sold by a licensed importer,
28 licensed manufacturer or licensed dealer to any one person, and
29 the number of handguns purchased by each person. The
30 Pennsylvania State Police shall use the information to
20070S0701B0793 - 2 -

1 investigate whether the person, licensed importer, licensed
2 manufacturer or licensed dealer may be in violation of section
3 6111 (relating to sale or transfer of firearms) or this section.
4 Section 3. This act shall take effect in 60 days.

Link to SB701.

[Agent Ronin]

Originally Posted by billamj

25 (e) Pennsylvania State Police.--The Pennsylvania State
26 Police shall retain information related to handgun purchases,
27 including the number of handguns sold by a licensed importer,
28 licensed manufacturer or licensed dealer to any one person, and
29 the number of handguns purchased by each person. The
30 Pennsylvania State Police shall use the information to

With all of these bills as of late, the poor State Police, does Harrisburg really think they have that many resources not being used lol. Imagine the workload on them if they all passed (God forbid).

[ChamberedRound]

I can't believe that Rafferty (my state senator) is a co-sponsor of this bill. He has, in the past, unequivocally stated that he would have nothing to do with this nonsense.

Guess it's time to fire up the email/phones/etc. and call him out on this one.

(sigh)

[billamj]

This is what I did.

Senator Rafferty;
I am writing to express how deeply concerned I am at your being a cosponsor of Senate Bill 701, “Amending Title 18 (Crimes and Offenses) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, further providing for the offense of sale or transfer of firearms; providing for the offense of straw purchases; establishing penalties; and providing for the powers and duties of the Pennsylvania State Police relating to straw purchases.” While I heartily support any effort to remove these criminals from our streets, the verbiage of this bill is distressing to say the least. As it is currently written it would make it illegal for me to purchase a firearm for one of my parents or my children as a gift even though it would be completely legal for them to own the weapon in question. I would ask that you remove your name from sponsorship of this bill until or unless the wording is changed to allow these perfectly legal transfers to continue as they do today.


ETA: Followed up with a phone call. Hopefully he'll pull his support.

[danp]

Just want to break down the language of this here to the best of my ability, hopefully if I make any mistakes Rule10b5 and/or GunLawyer can slap me around a bit.

For the purposes of 6111 the definition from 6102 is used, which defines a "firearm" as:

Any pistol or revolver with a barrel length less than 15 inches, any shotgun with a barrel length less than 18 inches or any rifle with a barrel length less than 16 inches, or any pistol, revolver, rifle or shotgun with an overall length of less than 26 inches. The barrel length of a firearm shall be determined by measuring from the muzzle of the barrel to the face of the closed action, bolt or cylinder, whichever is applicable.

So to the best of my knowledge this only deals with handguns, and some NFA items.

Now onto 6111...

First, it modifies 6111(g)(2) to make violation of 6111 a second degree felony instead of a third degree felony.

Secondly it adds a new offense under 6111.6 for "Straw Purchases"

"Straw Purchases" are defined under 6111.6(a) as:

No person, other than a licensed dealer, licensed manufacturer or licensed importer may purchase a firearm knowing or intending that the firearm will thereafter be transferred to another individual.

6111.6(b) lays out the presumption of guilt based in the absence of

1) any report by the purchaser to law enforcement authorities that the firearm has been stolen

and

2) any record of a lawful sale of the firearm possession of the firearm, on or after the date of its purchase, by a person other than the purchaser of the firearm shall give rise to a rebuttable presumption that the purchaser, at the time of purchase, knew or intended that the firearm would thereafter be transferred to another individual.

Of last importance is 6111.6(c) which lays out valid defenses:

It is a defense to a violation of this section that the person who purchased the firearm knew or intended that the firearm would thereafter be transferred as a bona fide gift to another individual.

So it appears that if you're gifting a firearm, that's OK since it is a defense, and then if you have a police report saying it was stolen, or a record of legal transfer you're OK.

I consider myself somewhat good at being able to discern the jist of our statutes but this one I think is a tad over my head on some of the specifics.

[billamj]

You may very well be right Dan and I could have misread it. Why the hell can't they write this stuff in English so anyone can understand it. Not meaning to insult Rule10b5 or GunLawyer, but this legalease could drive a sane man crazy.

[ChamberedRound]

Hmmm. Guess I should have read the complete text of the bill.

[danp]

Originally Posted by billamj

You may very well be right Dan and I could have misread it. Why the hell can't they write this stuff in English so anyone can understand it. Not meaning to insult Rule10b5 or GunLawyer, but this legalease could drive a sane man crazy.

This is exactly why I believe lawyers deserve every cent of what they make. Reading this stuff is not easy. It's taken me years to be able to read it as well as I do and I still know almost nothing.

The way I'm reading this it will only affect straw purchasers and not lawful purchasing, selling, and gifting of firearms so I don't think we have to raise the red flag just yet.

I sent this thread to Rule and GunLawyer so hopefully they'll chime in and let us know if my understanding is correct.

[LittleRedToyota]

Originally Posted by billamj

You may very well be right Dan and I could have misread it. Why the hell can't they write this stuff in English so anyone can understand it. Not meaning to insult Rule10b5 or GunLawyer, but this legalize could drive a sane man crazy.

actually, being the guy who gets tasked with negotiating/writing all of our license/service agreements (before they go off to our attorneys for final tweaking), i have come to understand why legal documents are written in "legalese".

when you start really asking "what if" and start "interpreting" the language to fit those different "what if" scenarios...and various exceptions to each what if scenario, you have to word things very precisely...which ends up being "legalese".

when i first started writing agreements, i tried to write them in plain english, but it never works because it leaves too much room for (mis)interpretation when you start trying to apply it to specific cases.

although legalese will give you a headache, if it is written correctly, it is actually much clearer than plain english in that it will leave very little room for misinterpretation and will cover nearly all possibly contingencies that might come up. plain english just can't do that in most cases.

[LittleRedToyota]

Originally Posted by danp

The way I'm reading this it will only affect straw purchasers and not lawful purchasing, selling, and gifting of firearms so I don't think we have to raise the red flag just yet.

the one thing i do not like about this proposed legislation is that it seems to shift the burden of proof to the accused. if you are accused of a straw purchase, it is up to you to prove that you did not make a straw purchase rather than the government to prove that you did. i find this unamerican...we are supposed to have a presumption of innocence...not a presumption of guilt...i courts of law.

basically, if this law passes and you have a firearm that is lost or stolen, you had better report it to the authorities or you can be convicted of making a straw purchase.

now, on the face of it, that doesn't seem like too big of a deal because it probably is a good idea to report a lost or stolen firearm to the authorities.

however, when confiscation day comes, you will not be able to say "sorry, mr. government gun confiscation guy, but i lost all those handguns that are registered to me in your illegal registry...er, database." if you try that, they will just nail your for a straw purchase.