Philly lawmaker proposes making state gun owners pay to register each weapon.
TOM VENESKY tvenesky@timesleader.com
It’s a problem that Wright Township Police Chief Joe Jacob says never changes: criminals who commit crimes with guns usually obtain the weapons illegally.
That’s why Jacob feels a bill introduced in the state House of Representatives won’t do anything to help police officers fight crime.
House Bill 760, introduced by state Rep. Angel Cruz, D-Philadelphia County, would require gun owners to register all firearms with the state every year for a fee of $10 per gun. The measure would also require all gun owners to submit to fingerprinting, background checks and passport-style photos in order to obtain a registration card. The registration card for each gun would have to be carried with that firearm at all times.
If a registration application is rejected, the applicant would have to surrender their firearms to the state police.
Cruz said the bill is a way to implement a tracking system to determine the source of firearms for criminals who commit gun violence.
But, Jacob sees it differently. He says the measure won’t help officers and won’t help law-abiding gun owners. Nor will it decrease gun violence, he said.
“That bill will not lessen crime in Philadelphia or anywhere else in the state,” Jacob said. “Criminals are using guns that are stolen or bought illegally on the street.
“I do not see how this will decrease gun violence or the amount of guns in criminals’ hands.”
That’s because the measure, which applies to handguns and rifles, only targets those who purchase their firearms legally, Jacob said.
The bill has put hunting clubs and gun owners in the area on alert. Jerry Schutz, president of the 800-member Luzerne County Federation of Sportsmen, said his members are “up in arms” over the measure. The bill would disarm honest citizens, he said.
“It’s an outrageous piece of legislation. Do they actually think criminals are going to register their guns? The Supreme Court has already ruled that criminals don’t have to register their firearms,” Schutz said, adding the measure is also a money-making scheme.
“If you have 20 guns, that’s $200 you have to pay every year,” he said. “I estimate that each member in our organization has at least four guns in their home.”
Jenkins Township resident David Kopetchny, president of the PA Stump Jumpers hunting club, said the bill is another attempt to undermine the rights of gun owners. The registration fee would create another hardship for him to continue hunting, he said.
Kopetchny said he is a disabled veteran who lives on $960 per month. The game he brings home during hunting season is a valuable food source, he said, but the cost of licenses, ammunition and possibly gun registration may make hunting too costly of an endeavor for Kopetchny to continue.
“I own eight guns, and that would be $80 in permits every year. It’s nonsense,” he said. “If this goes through, I can’t afford to hunt.”
Some local lawmakers – including state representatives Mike Carroll, D-Avoca; Phyllis Mundy, D-Kingston; Eddie Day Pashinski, D-Wilkes-Barre; Jim Wansacz, D-Old Forge; and John Yudichak, D-Nanticoke – have said they will vote against the bill.
Carroll said the bill has “no chance.”
He said the proposal was drafted in response to the rise in crime in the Philadelphia area. Carroll doesn’t fault the lawmakers from making an attempt, but he said the bill isn’t the solution.
The bill has four co-sponsors, Mundy said, an indication that it lacks support. Like Carroll, she doubts the bill will be brought up for a vote.
Pashinski called the bill “economically infeasible” because gun collectors and hunters typically own more than one firearm. He said gun-related crimes are a serious issue, but other avenues have to be looked at to solve the problem.
Yudichak said his office has received many calls from gun owners and hunters concerned about the bill.
Many gun-control efforts in the legislature are misguided, he said, because they target law-abiding citizens and not the criminal element.
Yudichak recommended taking another direction to curb crime.
“I think it’s the drug crime that needs to be combated,” he said. “We need to focus on the true problem – drugs. That’s what is driving the issue.”
Saturday, April 14, 2007
Friday, April 13, 2007
Rare Court Victory for Opponents of Electronic Vote-Counting Machines with No Paper Trail
April 13th, 2007
On April 12, a 7-judge panel of the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court ruled 4-3 that a group of voters may proceed with a lawsuit, challenging the use of Electronic Vote-Counting machines that leave no paper trail. Banfield v Cortes, 442 MD 2006.
The majority opinion is 26 pages long, and depends partly on the Pennsylvania Constitutional provision (Art. I, sec. 5) that “elections are free and equal.” The opinion quoted from a 1992 Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision that says, “When every voter has the same right as any other voter; when each voter under the law has the right to cast his ballot and have it honestly counted”, only then is the State Constitution satisfied. The decision then says, “Because Electors have a right under the Pennsylvania Constitution to have their votes honestly counted and because Electors have no way of knowing whether the votes will be honestly counted by DREs that are not reliable or secure, Electors have pled an injury.”
The majority also depended on sec. 1105-A of the Election code, which says an electronic voting system shall “provide for a permanent physical record of each vote cast.” That law was added in 1980, before the newest technology had been invented.
The 3-judge dissent says, “The statute does not say ‘paper’; it says ‘physical record.’
By chance, 5 of the 7 judges on the panel are women. All of the dissenters were women. The judges in the majority are Doris Smith-Ribner, Dan Pellegrini, Rochelle Friedman, and Robert Simpson; the dissenters are Bonnie Leadbetter, Renee Cohn Jubelirer, and Mary Hannah Leavitt. The state may appeal to the State Supreme Court.
from www.ballot-access.org
On April 12, a 7-judge panel of the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court ruled 4-3 that a group of voters may proceed with a lawsuit, challenging the use of Electronic Vote-Counting machines that leave no paper trail. Banfield v Cortes, 442 MD 2006.
The majority opinion is 26 pages long, and depends partly on the Pennsylvania Constitutional provision (Art. I, sec. 5) that “elections are free and equal.” The opinion quoted from a 1992 Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision that says, “When every voter has the same right as any other voter; when each voter under the law has the right to cast his ballot and have it honestly counted”, only then is the State Constitution satisfied. The decision then says, “Because Electors have a right under the Pennsylvania Constitution to have their votes honestly counted and because Electors have no way of knowing whether the votes will be honestly counted by DREs that are not reliable or secure, Electors have pled an injury.”
The majority also depended on sec. 1105-A of the Election code, which says an electronic voting system shall “provide for a permanent physical record of each vote cast.” That law was added in 1980, before the newest technology had been invented.
The 3-judge dissent says, “The statute does not say ‘paper’; it says ‘physical record.’
By chance, 5 of the 7 judges on the panel are women. All of the dissenters were women. The judges in the majority are Doris Smith-Ribner, Dan Pellegrini, Rochelle Friedman, and Robert Simpson; the dissenters are Bonnie Leadbetter, Renee Cohn Jubelirer, and Mary Hannah Leavitt. The state may appeal to the State Supreme Court.
from www.ballot-access.org
Monday, April 9, 2007
Pa. renters have big stake in referendum
By Charlie Ban
VALLEY NEWS DISPATCH
Sunday, April 8, 2007
Passing on the chance to vote this spring may prove costly for renters.
The May 15 primary will include a referendum on a tax shift that would increase the wage tax or establish an income tax in order to provide property tax relief.
This relief, ranging from $82 to $677 depending on the school district, will apply only to homeowners. Since renters are not property owners, they will see their local income tax rise without the benefit of a corresponding tax break on property.
The referendums were approved by school boards after recommendations by local tax-study commissions. They either approve increasing the wage tax -- now 0.5 percent in all school districts -- or establish personal income taxes, which include earnings from such things as stocks, bonds, rental property income and other investments.
The deadline to register to vote is April 16. Any U.S. resident who has lived in a district for 30 days prior to the election and will be at least 18 on the day of the election is eligible to vote.
A study by the Pew Research Center found that 22 percent of Americans are not registered.
Nish Suvarnakar, field director for the Pittsburgh League of Young Voters, said the referendum is not the kind of issue that inspires voters.
"Largely, renters vote when it comes to the presidential level, when there are candidates they can relate to," he said. "Things they can't see, like a referendum, aren't going to bring them out to vote."
He said the timing of the referendum would affect turnout because there is no high-profile race to draw voters. This also makes voter education difficult.
"We can do everything we can to engage them, but off-cycle elections are a challenge," he said. "Getting people interested in a referendum isn't as sexy as getting them interested in who the next presidential nominee will be.
"When you put it into context, (this election) matters a lot more, though," Suvarnakar said. "Local elections have a more immediate effect as to how you will live your life."
Greg Primm, president of the Apollo-Ridge School Board, said a high number of low-income residents and retirees in his district would benefit from the 0.8-percentage-point increase in the wage tax his district is proposing.
"I do think the referendum passing would be good for our area," he said. "I say this knowing it will cost me more."
Allegheny Valley School Board President Scott Redman said the proposal was awkward for his district.
"We kept no secret we weren't happy with the limitations the referendum placed on us," he said. "We figured that there was no possible change allowed by the state that would benefit most of our residents. If it's going to harm 80 percent of our taxpayers, it's a bad idea."
The board approved a referendum that would tax investments as well as income.
"By voting no, you vote to keep the system we have," he said. "I would have preferred it to be more straightforward, though."
Primm stressed the need for voters to become aware of the impact of the referendum's approval.
"It's hard for some people to want to pay a few hundred dollars more, knowing it will go elsewhere," he said. "Voters need to make sure they read the question carefully."
Charlie Ban can be reached at cban@tribweb.com or 724-226-4702.
VALLEY NEWS DISPATCH
Sunday, April 8, 2007
Passing on the chance to vote this spring may prove costly for renters.
The May 15 primary will include a referendum on a tax shift that would increase the wage tax or establish an income tax in order to provide property tax relief.
This relief, ranging from $82 to $677 depending on the school district, will apply only to homeowners. Since renters are not property owners, they will see their local income tax rise without the benefit of a corresponding tax break on property.
The referendums were approved by school boards after recommendations by local tax-study commissions. They either approve increasing the wage tax -- now 0.5 percent in all school districts -- or establish personal income taxes, which include earnings from such things as stocks, bonds, rental property income and other investments.
The deadline to register to vote is April 16. Any U.S. resident who has lived in a district for 30 days prior to the election and will be at least 18 on the day of the election is eligible to vote.
A study by the Pew Research Center found that 22 percent of Americans are not registered.
Nish Suvarnakar, field director for the Pittsburgh League of Young Voters, said the referendum is not the kind of issue that inspires voters.
"Largely, renters vote when it comes to the presidential level, when there are candidates they can relate to," he said. "Things they can't see, like a referendum, aren't going to bring them out to vote."
He said the timing of the referendum would affect turnout because there is no high-profile race to draw voters. This also makes voter education difficult.
"We can do everything we can to engage them, but off-cycle elections are a challenge," he said. "Getting people interested in a referendum isn't as sexy as getting them interested in who the next presidential nominee will be.
"When you put it into context, (this election) matters a lot more, though," Suvarnakar said. "Local elections have a more immediate effect as to how you will live your life."
Greg Primm, president of the Apollo-Ridge School Board, said a high number of low-income residents and retirees in his district would benefit from the 0.8-percentage-point increase in the wage tax his district is proposing.
"I do think the referendum passing would be good for our area," he said. "I say this knowing it will cost me more."
Allegheny Valley School Board President Scott Redman said the proposal was awkward for his district.
"We kept no secret we weren't happy with the limitations the referendum placed on us," he said. "We figured that there was no possible change allowed by the state that would benefit most of our residents. If it's going to harm 80 percent of our taxpayers, it's a bad idea."
The board approved a referendum that would tax investments as well as income.
"By voting no, you vote to keep the system we have," he said. "I would have preferred it to be more straightforward, though."
Primm stressed the need for voters to become aware of the impact of the referendum's approval.
"It's hard for some people to want to pay a few hundred dollars more, knowing it will go elsewhere," he said. "Voters need to make sure they read the question carefully."
Charlie Ban can be reached at cban@tribweb.com or 724-226-4702.
Ron Paul on Lou Dobbs
April 09, 2007
Ron Paul on Lou Dobbs Tonight
Congressman Ron Paul will be interviewed on CNN's Lou Dobbs program tonight.
Ron Paul on Lou Dobbs Tonight
Congressman Ron Paul will be interviewed on CNN's Lou Dobbs program tonight.
3rd Circuit Denies Rehearing in Pennsylvania Ballot Access Case
April 7th, 2007
On April 5, the 3rd circuit denied a rehearing in Rogers v Corbett, the ballot access case filed by the Green, Constitution and Libertarian Parties last year. The issue was whether the state could force a party to submit 67,070 signatures to place its statewide nominees on the ballot, if it had polled enough votes in the prior election to meet the state’s definition of “political party”. A rehearing request had been pending since August 2006.
Now, the case will be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
from www.ballotaccess.com
On April 5, the 3rd circuit denied a rehearing in Rogers v Corbett, the ballot access case filed by the Green, Constitution and Libertarian Parties last year. The issue was whether the state could force a party to submit 67,070 signatures to place its statewide nominees on the ballot, if it had polled enough votes in the prior election to meet the state’s definition of “political party”. A rehearing request had been pending since August 2006.
Now, the case will be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
from www.ballotaccess.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)