Local Gun "Law" Raises Questions

Last week, Philadelphia City Council unanimously passed a bill designed to close what has erroneously been dubbed the “Florida Loophole.”

I have some issues with the ordinance.

But let’s forget, for a moment, that I’m an ardent gun rights supporter.

Instead, let’s use this “opinion” column as a chance to examine facts.

In 1995, according to the AG’s Web site, the Pennsylvania General Assembly gave the state’s attorney general the authority to enter into what are known as “reciprocity agreements” with other states, by which firearm carry licenses would be mutually recognized.

This means a person licensed to carry a gun in Pennsylvania would be able to carry their firearm using their PA license in another state that is party to the reciprocity agreement.

By the same token, the licensee in, say, Florida, or another reciprocal state, could carry his or her firearm on their home state license while visiting PA.

Think of it as the equivalent of driving your vehicle in another state using your Pennsylvania driver’s license.

So, the fact that Philadelphia lawmakers are calling this thing a “loophole” is a falsehood right from the start. Actually, it’s a gross misrepresentation; it’s not a loophole, it’s the law.

But there are other mischaracterizations of the law here. Councilman Darrell Clarke, a prime sponsor of the new law, which requires those carrying a gun in Philly to do so only with a Pennsylvania License to Carry Firearms (LTCF), has been quoted saying people are applying to Florida for carry licenses because the Sunshine State’s criteria is less stringent than Pennsylvania’s.

This is a blatant falsehood. In Pennsylvania, gun license applicants are not required to undergo any type of firearms training in order to be approved for a license. They call the process “shall issue” here in the commonwealth, meaning citizens shall be issued a license barring any felony convictions.

In Florida, and other reciprocal states, however, applicants are required to take a course in order to be issued a license. So I would argue that the Florida requirements are actually stricter than Pennsylvania criteria.

Clarke is correct in that Florida, and some other reciprocal states, will issue a license to an out-of-state resident through the mail, but that occurs only after all the necessary background checks are passed, and other criteria completed, same as if the license was issued here, (i.e. ensure no felony convictions exist).

Furthermore, some claim the reason Philadelphians opt for non-resident, out-of-state licenses in the first place is that the Philadelphia Police Department, (the issuing authority in the city), denies applications for reasons not allowed by law, such as if someone has outstanding parking tickets.

I can’t attest to the merits of these arguments, but I have heard my fair share of stories firsthand, so they’re hard to ignore.  

I started out this column stressing that I aim to present facts. And while I also didn’t try to hide the fact that I’m a Second Amendment advocate, I still feel I presented the facts as they are.

To continue in that vein, let’s examine Title 18 of Pennsylvania’s Consolidated Statutes, specifically section 6120 of the Uniform Firearms Act, which deals with preemption:

"No county, municipality or township may in any manner regulate the lawful ownership, possession, transfer or transportation of firearms, ammunition or ammunition components when carried or transported for purposes not prohibited by the laws of this Commonwealth."

Hmmm, interesting. So state law says municipalities can’t craft their own gun laws. I guess that means since only the state legislature can pass firearm laws, this most recent city council ordinance is unenforceable.

OK, here comes the disclaimer: I’m returning to the opinion portion of this column.

So … I find it highly disturbing that our city lawmakers are passing laws that are unenforceable at best, downright illegal at worst.

Some folks I’ve corresponded with maintain elected officials who flout the law with such disregard could be charged with official oppression for passing an illegal law.

I’m not taking such a harsh stance at this point, since I merely aim to point out the problems with passing such questionable laws, and hope to raise some awareness through discourse. 

This is a slippery slope, people, and I wanted to examine this issue in a larger context. Basically, if our lawmakers are passing illegal laws dealing with one topic (guns), who’s to say they won’t continue to do so with other matters.

I just think it’s important to hold our elected officials accountable. I’m sure that deep down they aim to do the right thing, but it’s as equally important to work within the confines of the law to evoke change.

I can’t run a red light and then tell the police officer who stops me that I’m doing it with the belief that one day running red lights will be legal. I have to follow the law as it is now.  

I still would have broken the law and would have to suffer the consequences.

If City Council wants the ability to make its own gun laws in Philadelphia, it must go through the proper channels, and appeal to the General Assembly.

At that point, while I might disagree with the city’s position, at least I’ll have more respect for our local lawmakers, since they went about seeking change via the proper mechanisms.