As it stands now, anyone from Pennsylvania who has been involuntarily committed, or found to be mentally deficient - and thus ineligible to buy firearms - could travel to another state and buy a gun.
State Rep. Todd Stephens (R-151) of Horsham is looking to prevent what he calls a “loophole” pertaining to the inclusion of mental health records in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).
“What I’m proposing is already the law in 17 other states,” Stephens said. “I’ve been working on this initiative for a year and a half urging the state police to add this data to the national database.”
Currently, the Pennsylvania State Police include mental health commitments in the Pennsylvania Instant Check System (PICS), according to Pennsylvania State Police Trooper and Public Information Officer Adam Reed. Since 1998, PICS has been used to conduct background checks on individuals seeking to purchase a gun.
However, Reed said the state police do not upload that information to the national database because “NICS owns and controls the database.” Therefore, Reed said, it is up to NICS and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco Firearms and Explosives to “decide if they would accept the records.”
“We keep track of that information in our own state databases and are currently trying to include that into the national system,” Reed said.
In a Dec. 19, 2012 two-page letter written by Pennsylvania State Police Commissioner Colonel Frank Noonan to Paul Wysopal, NICS section chief and sent to B. Todd Jones, ATF director and Robert Mueller, FBI director, Noonan said the state police had been waiting since June 2011 for a determination as to whether Pennsylvania mental health commitments prohibit individuals from possessing firearms under federal law. Noonan, in the letter, said a Pennsylvania resident, who in October 2012 was denied a firearm, attempted to buy a weapon in West Virginia.
“A NICS background check revealed Pennsylvania’s previous denial,” Noonan’s letter states, adding that he believed the purchaser was denied the gun purchase. On Nov. 9, in light of the incident, Noonan said he received an email from a NICS representative with a legal opinion that Pennsylvania involuntary mental health commitments prohibit people from possessing firearms under federal law.
As a result of that, Noonan said the Pennsylvania State Police would begin forwarding all mental health records to NICS no later than Jan. 15 for inclusion in the national database. In addition, the state police would coordinate with NICS to “forward all future mental health records to NICS on a daily basis” according to the letter.
“I’m glad the state police have finally taken the necessary steps to include this information in the national database following the announcement of my legislation," Stephens said. "I will still seek to make this policy the law in Pennsylvania, as it is in 17 other states, so we can be sure those who have been involuntarily committed in Pennsylvania cannot obtain firearms in other states."
Stephens said he had hoped that the information could be added to the national database without the need for new legislation. But, after 18 months of delays and red tape, Stephens said he had intended to introduce the bill on Jan. 14, on his first day back to Harrisburg.
“This is something that the governor, through the state police, could implement immediately,” Stephens said. “They can move forward without my legislation. They can go ahead and do it tomorrow if they want.”
Stephens said Governor Corbett’s office said they were “looking at the issue closely” and would get back to him. If the impending bill - which Stephens said has already garnered support for co-sponsorship - moves forward, it’s his hope that it will pave the way for widespread support.
“It ought to be a national initiative,” Stephens said, adding that he’s spoken with representatives from Bucks County Congressman Mike Fitzpatrick’s office. “I hope that we can get it done in Pennsylvania. The rest of the states across the country will follow suit.”
Fitzpatrick's Chief of Staff, Athan Koutsiouroumbas said the eighth district legislator is "supportive" of Stephens' initiative and intends to introduce "companion federal legislation" in a few weeks.
While Stephens said the sharing of mental health records is an important initiative, Stephens said it is in no way the only “solution” for help in curbing gun violence, particularly in the wake of last month’s school shooting in Newtown, Conn.
“To me this was low-hanging fruit that’s a no-brainer,” Stephens said. “To help keep guns out of the hands of people who aren’t supposed to have them.”
Last session, Stephens sponsored . However, the bill did not come up for vote before the end of session.
“I’ve got to start all over with that,” Stephens said.
And with the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting fresh on everyone’s mind, Stephens suggested that other gun legislation may move slower, rather than quicker.
“When you have a serious issue with some broad concerns, there is a sense of moving a little bit more deliberately,” Stephens said. “I think we have to have a comprehensive review of the way we handle access to firearms. I don’t think there’s any one answer.”
Anytime someone tries to inject the least bit of 2nd Amendment-based reasonableness into this conversation, Liberals will label it as "NRA paranoia". They won't be happy until only criminals own all the guns.
The bill does NOTHING to prevent crazies from getting their hands on guns, as we've seen time and again. First, if you've been involuntarily committed, you're not allowed to possess guns, same if you're a felon. But that doesn't stop it from happening, does it? As for preventing "mentally ill" people from having weapons, well, that's a whole other issue. What do you mean? 3/4 of Americans seek mental health help at some point in their lives. So deny them? That would only cause folks needing some help to not get it, because they're hunters, or cops or have guns for whatever reason. So limit it to the "dangerous" ones? If you have that crystal ball, please loan it to me so I can tell who might do mass murder. Lastly, define weapon, since more murders are committed with hammers and bats than long rifles. As for retirees - do they still train? Are their reflexes, eyesight and judgement as good or better than a 40 year old's or a 20 year old's? By what criteria do you judge them worthy of carrying concealed where other's may not?
theft of firearms,illegal possession of a firearm,transporting illegal firearms,possession a firearm on school grounds,deadly force with a firearm,murder
@Mike Shortall. In Pennsylvania there is no need for a licence to purchase a firearm. You just need to go through the PICS background check at the time of purchase. There are some states in which you need a permit for each firearm you purchase. The only permit in PA required would be a concealed carry permit. This is not needed to purchase a firearm.
Also, I just heard that there has been no one in charge at the ATF for the past few years. Anybody know if that is True?
Mike: Google the second amendment and actually read it. Then look up the word militia. But unless you first take off your special addition NRA glasses, you will be wasting your time...
Why didn't the FF also prescribe that all law-biding gun owners surrender their arms after the War of 1812? Why didn't they send troops around the country to confiscate guns in those years when several FF served as POTUS? Try to comprehend the difference between mystic readings into the FF "intentions" and instead look at their actions. Actions that determined the true legal precedents we still follow. BTW ... There was no NRA back then and no "special NRA glasses" either!
Here's my source: http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-top-ten/countries-with-highest-reported-crime-rates.html I don't know about your other stats, but still the bottom line must be that the 20 children in China are alive....ours are in the grave. There is nothing hysterical about that.
So, no comment on Chicago, New York, Detroit, Washington and all those gun ban cities? As for your "data", there are 315,116,259 people in the US right now. Divided by 100,000 thats about 3151. Divide the number of violent crimes by that number, and you get the number of crime per 100 thousand people. Per the FBI 2011 Crime report, (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/violent-crime/violent-crime) there were 1,203,564 violent crimes that year. Or, about 381 per 100,000 people. In the UK, there were 2034 violent crimes per 100,000. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html As for your comment about the Chinese children, well, that's plain idiotic. Point is, gun laws DO NOT PREVENT TRAGEDY, nor school violence.That's why you want them, right? To prevent mass school assaults, right? Gun bans don't do that. Proven. Time and again. It's failed EVERY time it's been tried. But you still want them, don't you? Also, what IS your point about the Chinese students? That it's better for these kids to live with the nightmare of being assaulted by a cleaver wielding madman? That the fact that they didn't die makes it somehow OK?
Thanks, I am not a fanatic, just love my country and it's founding principles. AND, my point about the kids in China? For every one of the 20 kids murdered, there were many more traumatized survivors who heard them and their teachers die from one guy with a weapon that mowed them down in minutes - all because of some bullies who have the people convinced that any gun legislation = second amendment violation! It's absurd. Furthermore, the second amendment has nothing to do with what type of ammo and firearms fall under it's meaning. Sorry, I will never agree that our present gun laws are sufficient....I am dismayed that anyone could.
Also, Yikes, if you would care to look, the Federalist Papers and multiple other writings from the period, by the Founders, clearly delineates what they intended by the Second Amendment. Don't get all of your information from Wikipedia and Google. You asked above to look up the word militia. I recommend you read what the Founders meant by that. EVERY adult citizen was to have a weapon - equivalent in firepower to those carried by the armies. And "well regulated" meant well trained, not state run. But your last statement says it all. Because you are a true liberal - delusional, irrational, and gun phobic you won't rest until there are no guns in private hands. . You also believe that government can legislate perfect safety, if only we give up enough liberty, and there are enough laws. You don't recognize it, but you are a fanatic. And a fool.
Your insistence on making statements about your exaggerated view of what you think I am is really out there. I didn't know that I was a True Liberal, thanks for informing me of that. Because I speak of humanitarian issues, I am Liberal? You write "EVERY adult citizen was to have a weapon - equivalent in firepower to those carried by the armies. And "well regulated" meant well trained, not state run." Ok so - where and when does the 'well trained' part come in then? 'A well regulated militia' means REGULATED, so I ask - what is the problem with imposing some regulations?? It makes no sense at all.
You keep talking about militias as if that's the only thing the Second Amendment says. The part of the Amendment you and all the anti gun liberals are missing is "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." "the people" as it refers in every other instance in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights means all citizens. The Amendment clearly states that our right to own guns shall not be "infringed" The definition of infringed: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another. Therefore since you stated "Thanks, I am not a fanatic, just love my country and it's founding principles." you will agree there should be no changes to the laws of owning guns. You keep saying you don't want gun bans. Yet... " Sorry, I will never agree that our present gun laws are sufficient....I am dismayed that anyone could." So essentially you are just a hypocrite. You also speak of the NRA and how they have damaged our country since the 70's. The NRA has been involved in protecting the Second Amendment since 1871. They supported the 1934 National Firearms Act and the 1968 Gun Control Act which both clearly "infringed" upon our Second Amendment rights. There have been no bills proposed since then that would benefit anyone but the anti gun liberals. So yes, the NRA has opposed and fought against them.
"The people" is clearly a plural term, they could easily have used the term "persons" if it was intended to mean individuals. So what do we do in the present crisis of fanatical, disturbed individuals and convicted felons having incredibly easy access to our modern deadly weapons? Maybe we need an addendum that will address our modern problems - like the production of automatic assault weapons, among others. These are extremely dangerous, so why is it even being argued that they should or should not be largely unregulated and available to the general public- especially since we have an obvious cultural problem with violence? Times have changed, policies need to change along with it.
"They [liberals] won't be happy until only criminals own all the guns?" Is this more of "...the least bit of 2nd Amendment-based reasonableness" you were talking about?" On it's face that statement is absolutely absurd but epitomizes the type of unsupportable BS espoused by the NRA. Like advocating the arming of all teachers. As if there aren't enough teachers who have no business carrying a gun at school and denies the reality that such a scheme might encourage juvenile delinquent students to accept the challenge of merely overpowering a teacher to obtain a gun. I'm no liberal but I sure as heck am not some simple-minded fool who thinks unencumbered unlimited access to guns has no connection or consequences whatsoever with people committing multiple shootings and deaths with assault weapons and large capacity magazines. Looking for someone to blame about the jump to implement stricter gun laws? Blame the individuals and states that allow guns to get into the hands of those who inflict massive carnage on innocent citizens using guns. Advocate responsible, safe and sane gun ownership and usage; support laws that penalize those who are irresponsible, unsafe and insane with guns, lose the wild-eyed cries for unlimited-and-easy-access-to-guns-at-any-cost rhetoric. To reasonable people, the cost for unlimited, easy access to guns, such as the shooting deaths of small children in Newtown, CT, is a price they feel is becoming too high and not worth it.
No one has said "arm all teachers" to my knowledge. But you cannot argue the fact that law enforcement has changed its approach to "live shooter" situations. Their active search and prosecute tactic lends support to the notion that the presence of TRAINED, properly armed individuals can make a difference in such situations. As for the rest of your diatribe, you will have a hard time making headway with anyone, especially me since I am not a gun owner or an NRA member. So rant all you want. I will agree however, that the individual who allowed Lanza access to the weapons he used should be blamed. But since she paid with her life, I imagine there's no point in pursuing it. And I know of no state that allows "unlimited-and-easy-access-to-guns-at-any-cost", except for our own federal government, which will freely ship military weapons all over the globe or just across the border into Mexico for anyone with a drug cartel membership. Yet that same screwed up entity will be tasked - if some Liberals get their way - with limiting access to such weapons for perfectly legal and responsible individuals. Hope that wasn't too "simple-minded" for you!