GOP Pushing Gun Grab In Pa.

GOP Pushing Gun Grab In Pa. — Virtue-Signaling Philly Suburban Republicans — Delco’s Tom Killion (R-9) in the Senate and Montco’s Todd Stephens (R-151) — have introduced bills that would arguably allow permanent loss of gun rights on the basis of mere allegations.

The bills SB 90 and HB 1075 would amend Titles 18 (Crimes and Offenses) and 42 (Judiciary and Judicial Procedure) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes creating the category of Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPO).

An ERPO would be a court order that would prohibit a person from having in the person’s possession or control, purchasing or receiving or attempting to purchase or receive, a firearm, based upon a finding that the person presents a risk of suicide or of causing the death of, or serious bodily injury to, another person.

Fine. So how does one get subject to such a thing?

Upon the word of a law enforcement officer or a family or household member. They tell a district judge that you considered suicide or were cruel to a dog or made a threat and you lose your rights, whether you did such a thing or not.

You really think a district judge is going to say no?

There is a duration limit to the ERPO — from three months to a year — but as  Joshua Prince points out the ERPO puts you in a federal database and that makes you subject to the feds which is in effect a life-long ban.

Here’s is the wording of the law: Entry into database.–Upon receipt of an extreme risk protection order or an order renewing, vacating or terminating an extreme risk protection order, the Pennsylvania State Police shall cause the order to be entered into the appropriate database so that notice of the order is provided through the Pennsylvania Instant Check System and the Federal Bureau of Investigation National Instant Criminal Background Check System.

How about the termination part?

At a termination hearing, the respondent seeking termination of the order shall have the burden of proving, by clear and convincing evidence, that the respondent does not present a risk of suicide or of causing the death of, or serious bodily injury to, another person

So much for presumption of innocence.

We have some sympathy — or at least we would if we didn’t think they were pandering virtue-signalers — for those trying to deal with loons having access to guns.

We remember Sylvia Seegrist. We remember her mom desperately trying to get her help — and off the street.

The thing with Sylvia, though, is that she committed chargeable crimes such as assault, terroristic threats and vandalism before her murder spree but escaped prosecution due to the bizarre mental health theories of the time.

If ERPOs were based on the commission of crime for which one is charged as opposed to someone’s word, we’d back the concept.

By the way, most of the recent mass shooters could have been or had been charged with crimes before their killings that should have curtailed their access to guns. Nickolas Cruz had had numerous contacts with police, Devin Patrick Kelley had a record of domestic violence, Dylan Roof had drug and trespassing arrests etc.

Another point, gun rights are as important as voting rights. Some people should not be allowed to have a gun. These same people should not be allowed to vote.

GOP Pushing Gun Grab In Pa.
GOP Pushing Gun Grab In Pa.

5 thoughts on “GOP Pushing Gun Grab In Pa.”

  1. Although it’s POSSIBLE that Killion’s heart is in the right place (????), my experiences with him indicate that HE is part of the swamp. One example…he was ORIGINALLY a sponsor (along with Scott Wagner) of the bathroom bills which would have required that gender identity be used to determine which bathrooms, locker rooms, showers and overnight accommodations individuals could use. Thankfully, this hasn’t passed yet but it COULD eventually. This would apply to students in our public schools which could lead to all types of problems and would mean that students of different biological anatomies would share these facilities in our schools, intruding on our students’ right to privacy. To make matters worse, when I attempted to bring up his sponsorship a few years ago at one of his Town Hall meetings, he tried to stop me from speaking. This person is NOT a conservative and does NOT represent me and innumerable others who value common sense when supporting bills.

  2. Former State Rep. Kate Harper posted on the Lower Merion Politics Facebook page that this article was unfair and that the proposed law doesn’t lead to a permanent ban on gun rights

    OK, we want to be fair.

    According to the respected Joshua Prince those subject to ERPOs are also subject to federal law 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(4) which he says would mean a lifetime ban on the purchase of guns and ammunition.

    OK Kate, is this true? Is it possibly true? Can the concern be addressed before votes for the bills occur?

    The proposed law would also put those receiving an ERPO in the Pennsylvania Instant Check System and the Federal Bureau ofInvestigation National Instant Criminal Background Check System databases as per the law. Is this automatically removed when the ERPO is expired? Can this automatic removal be included in the law or is it something you want an ERPO recipient to do himself after much cost and aggravation?

    Note those accused of needing an ERPO under these bills don’t have a presumption of innocence or get the right to a trial by jury. Can you understand why the stripping of a right without these Constitutionally mandated safeguards might bother some?

  3. We have the second amendment and you guys don’t want to go by it . Your just as bad as the democrats. The bad guys will always have there guns . Chicago gun free zone blacks killing blacks every day with illegal guns. The second amendment was put there to protect us American citizens from the government trying to take us over . I hope none of you get re-elected

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.