The obvious issue is the Supreme Court and McDonald v. Chicago. Yes, we will all wait as the Justices deliberate and issue their final decision on how the Second Amendment will be incorporated. But for political junkies, who didn’t hold their breath as they read the headline generated from rumors that Chief Justice John Roberts would step down? (For more information about how that rumor was generated from a 1L class at Georgetown to headlines, read this account.) If the rumor had proved to be true, suddenly the Heller 5 would be no more, and the litigation that will likely define the contours of the Second Amendment would be at risk since the likely replacement would not be friendly to our rights.

Another reason for gun owners to be concerned was on display at the Huffington Post this week. Former federal judge H. Lee Sarokin wrote about the recent issues with carry in Starbucks and put his real feelings about the right to bear arms on the record. His perception of those who carry firearms for protection is a stereotypical and disconnected vision of uneducated, racist, and trigger happy men. While we are fortunate that Judge Sarokin has been off of the bench for more than a decade, the idea that more appointees like him may still be deciding future Second Amendment cases is disturbing. (Judge Sarokin was appointed by President Carter to the United States District Court (N.J.) and elevated to the United States Court of Appeals (3rd Cir.) by President Clinton.)

While most voters only think about the Supreme Court when they think about judicial concerns at the ballot box, Judge Sarokin is a reminder that federal appointments at various levels can make a difference in issues we care about. Once the McDonald decision does come down, it will leave many detailed questions about the permissible scope of gun control laws to be answered by lower courts. However, those appointments rarely receive the scrutiny and attention of Supreme Court nominees.

Lawyers from both side were given the chance to argue their sides before the Justices today, but the overwhelming public opinion is that the Justices will side with the same division as the Heller opinion in a 5 to 4 decision. In Heller, Justices Scalia, Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas and Alito sided in favor of second amendment rights while the remaining Justices dissented. The case is important to both sides as it will have sweeping effects on the ability of states to restrict citizens second amendment rights.

Filed on the same day the Heller decision was decided, this case differs, if only slightly. Washington, D.C. , the center of the Heller case, is of direct federal jurisdiction rather than a city with local and state jurisdictions applying. During arguments today, the divide remained

Link to the case briefs: McDonald v. City of Chicago, IL, Docket No. 08-1521

The coverage is wide, but here are some relevant articles:

By its conclusion, it seemed plain that the court would extend a 2008 decision that first identified an individual right to own guns to strike down Chicago’s gun control law, widely considered the most restrictive in the nation.

New York Times: Supreme Court Still Divided On Guns

The Supreme Court seemed likely to rule for the first time that gun possession is fundamental to American freedom, a move that would give federal judges power to strike down state and local weapons laws for infringing on Second Amendment rights.

The Wall Street Journal: New Ammunition for Gun Rights

To no one’s surprise, the justices gave no sign that they’ve changed their minds in the past two years. Several talked as if the issue when they rule won’t be whether to restrain gun control nationwide but how much room to leave for “reasonable” state and local limits. And that, indeed, is the important question.

Our view on the Second Amendment: Extend gun rights, but leave room for reasonable limits

However, never let it be said that Pennsylvania doesn’t have a voice in the arguments before the Supreme Court on Tuesday. In fact, we’re lucky to have more than 30 pro-gun lawmakers standing up for our rights in this case.

At the federal level, 15 members of our Congressional delegation signed on to a brief in support of the law-abiding citizens who would like to own a handgun in Chicago. This total includes both Senators and every member of Congress except the Philadelphia-area representatives, and those representing Pittsburgh and Erie.

Coming down to the state level, the most high profile supporter of the McDonald case is Attorney General Tom Corbett who signed a brief with more than three dozen other Attorneys General. However, it’s easy to miss the state legislators who were pro-active in signing on to various briefs in favor of the plaintiffs.

Five female lawmakers joined a brief outlining the concerns of women who face state and local governments that seek to limit their right to self-protection. In addition, one Senator and 11 Representatives put their names on a general state legislator brief that points out a clear direction from the Supreme Court in favor of incorporation will better serve the states and help to secure the fundamental rights of their citizens.

So if you have time on Tuesday, take a few moments to thank the following lawmakers for standing up for our rights. I’ve included links to social media homes where you can publicly thank them if you have an account:

Federal
Senator Arlen Specter
*Twitter
*Facebook

Senator Bob Casey
*Facebook

Representative Jason Altmire
*Facebook

Representative Christopher Carney
*Facebook

Representative Charlie Dent
*Facebook

Representative Jim Gerlach
*Twitter
*Facebook

Representative Tim Holden

Representative Paul Kanjorski
*Twitter
*Facebook

Representative Patrick Murphy
*Facebook

Tim Murphy
*Twitter
*Facebook

Representative John Murtha

Representative Joe Pitts
*Twitter
*Facebook

Representative Todd Platts
*Facebook

Representative Bill Shuster
*Twitter

Representative Glenn Thompson
*Twitter
*Facebook

More info and list of parks per the National Park Service:
http://www.nps.gov/nero/firearms/PA/index.htm

Parks:

Allegheny Portage Railroad National Historic Site

Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area

Deshler-Morris House

Edgar Allan Poe National Historic Site

Eisenhower National Historic Site

Flight 93 National Memorial

Fort Necessity National Battlefield

Friendship Hill National Historic Site

Gettysburg National Military Park

Gloria Dei Church

Hopewell Furnace National Historic Site

Independence National Historical Park

Johnstown Flood National Memorial

Steamtown National Historic Site

Thaddeus Kosciuszko National Memorial

Upper Delaware Scenic and Recreational River

Valley Forge National Historical Park

In a crash course, here’s an overview of what to expect from politicians after your support this spring.

Those running for Governor will be on the prowl for at least 2,000 signatures to make it onto the May ballot. With contested primary races in both of the major parties, any gun owner who is registered with one will likely start hearing from candidates soon. Due to the statewide nature of the race, candidates are expected to get at least 100 signatures from at least 10 different counties to show at least minimal viability outside of one area.

In your Congressional districts, candidates will be looking for 1,000 signatures to get on the ballot in hopes of heading to Washington. In several districts, incumbents have multiple challengers from within their own party or those running on a different ticket. The latest Cook Political Report analysis of House seats shows 10 of 19 with varying degrees of competitiveness.

A little closer to home, those who want to move into the State Senate will set their sights on getting 500 signatures to appear on the ballot. For (mostly) political newcomers with an eye on State House seats, they need to bag at least 300 signatures. Expect all of these political hopefuls to be out in the field in search of their prey until March 9.

It’s important to start thinking about these campaigns as a voter and gun owner in Pennsylvania since several races may be determined during the primary election. Or, at the very least, gun owners may be able to influence a race so more than one candidate on the ballot come November is supportive of our rights.

For example, in two Democratic primary races in Northeast Pennsylvania, pro-gun legislators are being challenged by extremely anti-gun candidates within their party. If gun owners want to vote in those races, they must be registered with the party by April 19. If they want to volunteer for the campaigns most supportive of their rights, this is an important time to help out in the race.

Gun owners should also know about the unique process happening in a number of General Assembly races and in the 12th Congressional District. Due to vacancies, some races will have two elections on the same day – the election to fill the vacancy (considered a special election) and the primary to appear on the ballot for the same seat in November (the regularly scheduled primary). In these cases, officials are opting to have the special election on the same day as the primary in order to save the taxpayers money.

How candidates are selected for the special elections in these unique cases is up to the parties. We know that in the 12th Congressional District, the rules are as follows:

For Republicans, each county committee in the district will be assigned a certain number of conferees to send to the selection meeting. The conferees will vote to decide who becomes the party’s candidate.

For Democrats, the county committees in the 12th Districts will meet to recommend a candidate to the state party’s 50-member executive committee. The executive committee, comprising members from across Pennsylvania, will decide whether to endorse a candidate.

The choice from each of the parties for the special election will also likely have the full party backing for the primary election held the same day. For gun owners, the race generally looks good, but local voters may want to keep an eye on the unknowns looking to take the seat.

Now that you’re properly equipped and armed for the fresh 2010 election season, you may want to consider getting involved. As you can see from the information above, it’s a very fluid situation depending on the races in your area. Do some research, ask questions, or call local party leaders to find out more about what’s going on in your district.

But for those who haven’t had to act locally yet, here are some tips gleaned from previous experience.

• Organize with other gun owners as much as possible before the event. First, it increases likely turnout when gun owners know there will be others there to back them up and they are part of a team. Second, there is power in numbers. While it’s easy to use PAFOA’s forums as a recruiting center, don’t forget about other resources. You can find more bodies and voices at your gun club or via an email to friends and family, try to convince folks to come out even if they sit silently in support of our rights. Don’t forget about relevant non-residents who might have standing to speak – business owners, employees in town, and those who also visit and spend money in the area.
• Dress accordingly. Not every speaker needs to be dressed to the nines, but double check that your clothes are clean and appropriate. Remember that the underlying message you’re trying to send is that you’re an average taxpayer who is concerned about the direction of city government getting into areas where they are not legally allowed to legislate. Just look neighborly.
• For those willing to speak, divide arguments by topic. Assign one speaker to tackle each of the primary arguments to the fullest extent possible in only a few minutes. This means each topic can be discussed at a deeper level in the limited time allotted for each speaker in many government meetings. It also minimizes redundancy which could make leaders tune out remarks. Consider working to review each other’s prepared remarks to make sure each point is tackled.
• If you do have help from out-of-towners, try to keep the core arguments limited to residents. If the anti-gun leaders want to shut down debate, they may aim to limit it to residents only.
• If you’re not used to speaking in public, write out your statement and print it in an easy-to-read format. It’s better to read well-crafted remarks and stay on point than risk rambling on about other topics off the cuff. If you want to improve your presentation skills, practice at home in front of a video camera. Watching yourself speak on video is a harsh lesson, but it is the most honest assessment of both good and bad habits.
• Don’t forget to identify yourself and how you are related to the community. Sometimes it’s hard to remember to introduce yourself, but it is often required in town meetings and it serves to advance the argument that there are gun owners all around who want their rights respected.
• If you have several arguments to make on a topic, number them in your remarks. It will let councillors know that you have a well-developed argument that should be easier to follow. If time begins to run out, it also gives them a polite way to ask you to quickly make the rest of your points.
• Don’t fight with city leaders. If gun control is brought up at all, it is likely because there is at least one anti-gun leader on the board. Understand that they are likely to try and defend their legislation. At best, you may want to politely rebut any stinging arguments, but do not try to pick a fight with them. Choose your battles wisely.
• Don’t fight with the anti-gun leaders in the audience. We know 99% of what they will say in advance. There is a very good chance that in your efforts to divide arguments, gun owners will have made the factual arguments that defeat their emotional pleas. Unless a new argument is made, don’t worry about getting up to argue again and again.
• Stick with the relevant facts. As inspiring as it may feel to talk about the importance of the Second Amendment, most local leaders don’t really think about their responsibility to respect the federal Bill of Rights. Unfortunately, until we end up with a favorable result in McDonald, anti-gun advocates may argue that it doesn’t hold much legal weight, either. While a lofty reference or two for inspiration won’t derail your argument, keep the focus on immediate concerns they – and other residents – can identify with.
• Look to other city issues that can supplement your arguments. For example, with a major pothole problem, is it really in the city’s best interest to spend money on a gun control measure that’s likely to be struck down? Remind them that as much as gun control might “feel good” to them, there are bigger local issues that must be dealt with at the moment. Whether it comes in the form of potholes, schools, or taxes, most towns have more pressing needs on their agenda than gun control.

Perhaps the most important tip in all of this is to stay in touch with those who turn out and help. Connect online again. Grab some coffee or hit the range with your new fellow activists. Don’t forget that while we’re always trying to defend our rights, most of us were initially attracted to this issue because we truly enjoy the sports and the other people in the movement.

I write to you as the Founder & President of Pennsylvania Firearm Owners Association, an organization representing tens of thousands of gun owners across the Commonwealth, including many in Radnor. We share concerns about the ordinance you may discuss and vote on tonight brought forth by CeasefirePA, as noted in your published agenda.

The so-called “Lost-and-Stolen” firearms ordinance is illegal under current state law. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held 14 years ago, in the case of Ortiz v. Commonwealth that “The General Assembly, not city councils, is the proper forum for the imposition of [firearms] regulation.” Today, the majority of voters from all parties support that decision, as was reflected in a recent statewide poll.

As you will likely hear from many gun owners tonight, the legal issues that will be created with this ordinance will likely result in costly litigation for the city should you pass and enforce it. These are financial burdens that few city officials will find easy to justify to hardworking taxpayers. However, the members of PAFOA would like to offer an alternative to such expenses. Rather than passing a toothless ordinance designed only to harass gun owners, consider diverting what you plan to budget for the enforcement costs and legal defense to general law enforcement funds. Focus on reducing all crime and fully funding investigative teams who can help put dangerous criminals behind bars.

There are already many federal and state laws on the books that target straw purchasing and other types of criminal gun trafficking. Using what limited resources the town has to fully fund law enforcement needs will help bring the full weight of current laws – all of which are far more strict – down on those who pose a true danger to Radnor’s residents.

We ask that you either table the ordinance indefinitely or take a solid vote against a redundant, meaningless ordinance which will ultimately cost the city far more than its taxpayers can afford in these tight times.

Sincerely,
Daniel Pehrson
Founder & President
Pennsylvania Firearm Owners Association

For example, Lt. Lisa King cites concerns that applicants to out-of-state licensing authorities might have been arrested, but never convicted of any crimes. To her, such a situation seemingly demands the denial of Constitutional rights without any effort by authorities to prove guilt. Fortunately for those of us who believe in the rule of law, our justice system is one based on a presumption of innocence until the state can prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury of our peers.

District Attorney Seth Williams, whose office frequently refuses to process cases of known criminals who are disqualified from owning – let along carrying – a gun, announced plans for his “legislation unit” to look into the matter. Residents of Philadelphia might ask why their tax dollars are being used to lobby rather than prosecute those who have actually committed crimes.

As initially mentioned to the Daily News reporter, PAFOA has firsthand accounts of those who have faced the abusive and arbitrary licensing requirements of the City. When licenses of the victims are regularly revoked simply because a home or car is broken into, it is clear that the Police Department would rather pick on easier targets – those who seek to follow the law – than investigate cases of actual criminals.

Attorney General Tom Corbett’s spokesperson came to the defense of those who opt for an out-of-state permit, noting that the requirements for Florida are actually more strict than Pennsylvania. Though that did not stop the anti-gun group, CeasefirePA from blaming him for the practice. In an admission to the paper, the organization said this is an opening salvo in a planned attack on the Attorney General in the upcoming gubernatorial elections.

Finally, the article does reveal that the Police Department plans to work closely with the District Attorney on the issue. One might assume this means they will work together to prosecute more cases against violent criminals. However, rather than concentrating on getting dangerous people off the streets of Philadelphia, King announced a plan to subpoena records from Florida in order to target the Philadelphia residents who have lawfully obtained a permit from the state. It speaks volumes that the City leaders would rather use resources and manpower to target those who can pass multiple background checks and have appropriate firearms training rather than focusing on putting more hardened criminals behind bars.

As most gun owners in Pennsylvania know, owning or carrying a firearm in the city of Philadelphia can be risky given the history of abuses by the city’s police department. Under current PPD policy, law abiding carry license holders have had their license revoked for being victims of theft, including having their houses broken into. At PAFOA, we’ve also had reports of the police department illegally revoking permits of members issued by other counties when the victim’s car was broken into while visiting the city.

In fact, the abuse of license holders is reflected by the PPD’s inexplicable permit revocation rate of nearly 12%, while every other county (including Allegheny which contains Pittsburgh) is well below 1%. When the stats are run, Philadelphia is responsible for  30-40% of all carry permit revocations in the entire state each year.

As a result, it is not surprising that some gun owners may opt for the more uniform standards of another state license over the discriminatory abuses of the Philadelphia Police Department. In times of tighter budgets, some gun owners may also opt to carry only one license from a state which is more widely recognized than ours instead of getting multiple.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to ask.

Most voters don’t spend Friday night tuned into PCN – Pennsylvania’s version of C-SPAN – to watch coverage of small political events. Perhaps that’s what the Democratic gubernatorial candidates were counting on when they debated at the Pennsylvania Progressive Summit. Hoping gun owners, especially those registered with their party, wouldn’t find out, each of the candidates pledged to support various gun control policies.

Allegheny County Executive Dan Onorato launched his slate of new gun control policies with a statewide lost and stolen law, followed by ending preemption (particularly if he can’t get the lost and stolen legislation passed), and mandatory “child safety locks.” Onorato did not specify whether his mandatory lock policy would apply to only sales of firearms or whether it would also apply to gun storage.

Auditor General Jack Wagner dodged most state policy issues on gun rights, describing his agenda as keeping guns out of the hands of “bad people.” The one specific policy Wagner highlighted was his support of a ban on semi-automatic rifles.

Scranton Mayor Chris Doherty made ending preemption the priority gun control agenda item in his response at the debate. The second policy he would push if elected governor is to institute one gun-a-month restrictions for all gun sales in Pennsylvania. He did not expand on whether this included a formal registry of gun owners and their purchasers, so we’re left with little information on how such sales would be tracked and restricted.

Montgomery County Commissioner Joe Hoeffel ended the round of answers with little more than a political version of “all of the above.” Specifically, he named these priorities: gun sales limits, lost and stolen legislation, mandatory locks, and the end of state preemption. In addition to the previously discussed issues, Hoeffel also supports a ban on private sales of firearms in Pennsylvania.

No Republican candidates took part in the debate, though organizers indicated that invitations were extended.