Skip to main content

Fighting gun trafficking gets ensnared in political fight

Published September 03. 2019 08:41AM

HARRISBURG — When Pennsylvania lawmakers were rushing to wrap up the session’s business in June, aides to state Attorney General Josh Shapiro came to them with a request: expand the office’s authority to pursue gun-trafficking crimes across the state.

The idea was to insert the measure into a fast-tracked bill dealing with drug crimes. But the request — to give the office statewide jurisdiction to prosecute illegal gun possession, sales and transfers — got put aside for the summer amid objections, apparently revolving around law-enforcement turf and gun politics.

“It didn’t take long to become apparent that the statewide jurisdictional change was going to cause far too many problems with legislation that had to get done,” said House Judiciary Committee Chairman Rob Kauffman, who was in charge of shepherding the bill.

Calls to respond to gun violence in Pennsylvania have only grown since then, coming to a head in mid-August when a man with a long criminal record — which barred him from legally possessing firearms — allegedly shot and wounded six Philadelphia police officers during a standoff.

Still, it’s unclear whether the provision has any chance of becoming law in the Republican-controlled Legislature after lawmakers return to session in September.

Under current law, the attorney general’s office cannot prosecute gun-trafficking cases without a referral from a district attorney.

Shapiro’s aides point to the success of a joint gun-violence task force that, since 2006, has stationed state gun-trafficking agents in Philadelphia and personnel in the Philadelphia district attorney’s office to prosecute those cases.

The attorney general’s office could use the authority to offer similar help to police departments and district attorneys in other counties, Shapiro’s aides said, and track gun-trafficking pipelines across the state.

It’s not necessarily novel: The attorney general’s office already has legal authority to prosecute various crimes without a district attorney’s referral, including human trafficking and narcotics.

After receiving the request, House Judiciary Committee staff checked with a short list of law enforcement organizations and gun-rights groups to see if they would support the idea, said Kauffman, R-Franklin.

Not all of them did.

Kauffman would not say exactly who objected to it, or describe specific objections, although he acknowledged discomfort from gun-rights proponents.

“I would say that generally our second amendment advocates do have concern with folks they perceive as anti-gun proposing or attempting to infringe on their rights through additional laws,” Kauffman said.

Shapiro, a Democrat who is widely viewed as a future candidate for governor, backs various bills that gun-rights groups have tended to oppose, such as an expansion of background checks to private sales of shotguns, sporting rifles and semi-automatic rifles.

Rep. Jared Solomon, D-Philadelphia, a lead supporter of expanding the attorney general’s authority to enforce gun-trafficking laws, said Judiciary Committee staff told him that the NRA opposed the provision.

“The NRA will tell you they want to enforce the laws on the books, so what did we do? We give them a vehicle to do just that, which is to enforce the laws on the books, which is to provide more resources to that end. And they said, ‘No,’” said Solomon.

An NRA spokeswoman countered that the organization took no position on the bill, and said it routinely calls for the enforcement of existing gun laws.

“Criminals should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, and we take no position on who should do the prosecuting,” NRA spokeswoman Amy Hunter said in a statement.

Kim Stolfer, chairman of the Pennsylvania-based gun-rights group, Firearms Owners Against Crime, said he told Judiciary Committee staff that he had no problem with the idea.

“If you commit a crime with a firearm, you should pay a price and we’re not doing that,” Stolfer said.

The state Fraternal Order of Police lodge and the Pennsylvania State Troopers Association said they had not been asked for an official position.

But the Pennsylvania District Attorneys Association, which represents 66 of the state’s 67 county prosecutors, had objections. Its director of legislation and policy, Greg Rowe, said the association would support the measure only with certain parameters: giving a district attorney the “right of first refusal” to prosecute the case or linking the jurisdiction to a joint task force.

Rowe said he didn’t hear back from the committee after he pitched the counterproposal.

Shapiro’s aides, meanwhile, said they had had conflicting reports about who objected.

“We heard first that, ‘Yep, we’re in good shape, everyone’s good with this,’” said David Wade, Shapiro’s chief of staff. “And then we heard, ‘Change in plans, this isn’t going.’”

–––

Follow Marc Levy on Twitter at www.twitter.com/timelywriter

Comments
Texas shooter bought his AR through a straw purchase.

We need universal background checks now.
Know-it-all Joe. Once again you display minimal knowledge of a subject with maximum bloviation. A straw purchase is when one person pretends to buy a gun for themselves, but, instead they purchase it for someone else. They fill out paperwork that indicates they will own the gun. Instead, they hand it over to ,more than likely a criminal, who probably was not allowed to purchase a gun in the first place. This “paperwork jockeying” is fully illegal for both parties involved. This has been the Law for as long as I am aware. We already have universal background checks. Come on Joe, you should be sharper than this. Once again we have a crazy individual that shouldn’t have access to a gun...have a gun. Terrible. Alum Dan is right.
A straw purchase is when a gun is sold to someone who cannot possess a gun and is only illegal if the original purchaser lies on the background check at a Federal Firearms Dealer about who will possess it or buys it with knowledge that it is intended to be used in a crime. The original buyer might sell it years later to a felon and it’s still a straw sale but no law was broken because they were unaware the new buyer was a felon and did not intend to sell the gun at time of original purchase. A mandated background check eliminates the chance of a legal straw sale.
You are wrong on several points Joe. Your premise is false. You, Joe, are a know-it-all. You state, “...when a gun is sold to someone who cannot possess a gun...”. That is illegal. Next, you state,”...is only illegal if the original purchaser lies on the...with knowledge that it is intended to be used in a crime.” This is wrong. You are illegal regardless of the intent. You would be be illegal and stupid if you knew of intended crime. You would be subject to a law suit at the very least. Next, you state,”the original buyer might sell it years later to a felon...”, It is illegal to sell a gun to a felon. You, Joe, display little knowledge of firearms and associated paperwork. You are fishing in the dark. I have purchased over 50 guns through the years. I am by no means an expert. I have never made a private purchase. You, Joe, want to get involved in paperwork for guns, when paperwork from Doctors in a mental facility is what needs to be reviewed. It is a pretty big deal to become a Federal Firearms Dealer. You must keep records of everything. You can be audited at any time. I am not aware of a “legal straw sale.”
Joe, you are one of those argumentative know-it-all types. You display tremendous gaps in knowledge and understanding. You argue every minor point that doesn’t really matter, but, you have glaring gaps in many areas that are major. Your life, it seems, is biased to the extreme of exclusion of things you disagree with. Keep it up. Isn’t it tough to learn if you are lock-minded?
Remember the warning from Benjamin Franklin, “Those who will trade their Rights and Freedom for Security will have neither!”

Concentrate on the person who abuses and miss uses the inanimate object and his motivation for doing so. What has changed from the days when a group of teens and preteens could go “up the back” shooting and no one ever got hurt or shot each other?
I love when people use that “quote”. Here is what is said in a letter to the colonial governor that is widely believed to be By Franklin:

“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

The context of the letter was debate over taxation, nothing about guns. At least when you shoehorn that quote for a gun debate you are acknowledging that gun ownership makes us less safe.

An inanimate object is not liberty. There is nothing unconstitutional about restrictions on certain weapons or conditions in purchase.
And Liberty is government subservient to the will of the people, not people totally controlled by a tyrannical government. Government subverting the Constitutional Rights of the law abiding citizen is tyranny.
Joe, have you ever been subjected to a Federal background check in the LEGAL PURCHASE of a firearm? What more could/would a universal background check involve? Search for the recent news article where a reporter who had little or no knowledge of what the existing background check consisted of. He/she went to a Walmart and went through the purchase process and honestly reported the depth and thoroughness of the existing investigation.
The part of universal background checks that opponents conveniently leave out is the consequences to the seller if they don’t comply. If the seller will face jail time if the gun they sold without a check turns up in a crime I’m sure compliance will follow.
Come on Joe. It should be a crime to be a half wit...like you. You clamor for more gun control before you even get the facts. Then you accuse the NRA and the gun manufacturers of handing out guns like candy. Then you misunderstand straw purchases. Yet you believe you are fully informed about gun laws. These events are terrible. Instead of going after mental illness you want to take away guns of millions of law abiding citizens. If you drive drunk, why should we take away your neighbors car?
The Devil is in the details.

What will expanded background checks involve relative to the currently used background checks?

Red Flag Laws are open to abuse and false accusations. They conflict with the Constitutional Rights of Due Process.

Gun Buybacks are simply government confiscation of legally owned property.

What is an Assault Weapon? Is it a Semi-Automatic rifle, all semi-automatics or just those with a black stock? Does it include every semi-automatic handgun including outlets action revolvers? Does it include semi-automatic shotguns?
Will those designated Assault Weapons be designated purely by appearance as Diane Feinstein did for the Clinton era assault weapons ban?

Universal checks make it a crime to sell a gun to a felon in a private sale. It may be true that murderers will break the law to get a gun, the seller won’t want to become a felon.

Red flag has due process, that’s BS. That’s like saying a cop has to allow a suspect to keep their gun on them in the squad car because they havent been convicted yet.

Buy backs are voluntary.

The definition of an assault weapon is available in the original statute and includes options beyond being semi automatic. We had a hell of lot fewer mass shootings during the Reagan and Clinton bans

Classified Ads

Event Calendar

<<

October 2025

>>
SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
   
 

Upcoming Events

Twitter Feed