NSSF recently published 2010 data collected from food banks, the USDA, and hunger programs to study how much hunters have given to those less fortunate. The data is split into regional numbers, and it reveals that Pennsylvania’s hunters, along with those of eight other Northeastern states, donated more than 201,100 pounds of venison to food banks and hunger programs. All of that meat contributed to nearly 805,000 meals for those struggling during these tough economic times.

Around the country, nearly 2.8 million pounds of game meat were donated to programs that feed the hungry. The result was more than 11 million meals served at a time when food banks across the nation have been depleted as families struggle.

NSSF’s Jim Curcuruto points out that the data from confirmed sources is already impressive, “…annual donations could easily be double this amount if ‘direct’ donations from hunters to friends and family are included.”

For more information on how you can contribute if you’re a hunter, check out this listing of Pennsylvania processors for Farmers & Hunters Feeding the Hungry or this list of processors from Hunters Sharing the Harvest.

From this article in The Patriot-News, we get an idea of the “us vs. them” style rhetoric from one group involved in the debate:

It’s the Pennsylvania Farm Bureau vs. the National Rifle Association in a title bout over the legalization of hunting on Sunday.

The Farm Bureau is the defending champion of one of the last remaining blue laws that forbids hunting of most game species on the Lord’s designated day of rest. …

“There are interests outside Pennsylvania with money coming in and pushing this,” [Farm Bureau spokesman Mark] O’Neill said. “They are targeting Pennsylvania.”

Fortunately, the reporter sets Mr. O’Neill straight on a few facts:

Every member of the Sunday Hunting Coalition has significant membership inside Pennsylvania.

The NRA alone has some 400,000 Pennsylvanians on its rolls.

The NSSF has more than 500 Pennsylvania businesses on its rolls.

Yes, Mr. O’Neill, we’re Pennsylvanians – many of our members were born here and have lived here our entire lives. We’re not outside interests or non-residents flying in to force policies upon you.

We’re taxpayers, too. We also pay for the conservation & farming programs that your farmers benefit from at the federal government – Conservation Reserve Program & Wetlands Reserve Program to name a couple. (Let’s not even get into the Farm Bill…) It’s time that we had a voice in this debate, and you should not stoop to the level of calling accusing the fellow citizens who simply disagree with you “interests from outside” of our state.

We’re here, we’re ready for a change, and we hope that your members will work with us on improving the state of hunting in Pennsylvania instead of reducing the debate to “us vs. them” and making threats about shutting out hunters if you don’t get your way.

Advocates of Sunday hunting in Pennsylvania recently released a report on the predicted economic impact of allowing hunting throughout the entire weekend. Now, the legislature is finally moving forward on the proposal. Representative John Evans introduced HB 1760 that was referred to the chamber’s Game and Fisheries Committee this week.

Representative Marc Gergely also released a statement about hist work on this week’s resolution from the Pennsylvania Game Commission to support Sunday hunting:

“I thank the Game Commission for passing this resolution that I requested,” Gergely said. “Sunday hunting would double the number of days many hunters will have to enjoy their sport, create thousands of jobs and attract young people to hunting and conservation.”

A recent legislative hearing on the issue of Sunday hunting had a high turnout, as seen by these photos posted by Rep. Evans. In addition, he recently conducted an interview on the recent meetings and the broader Sunday hunting topics that you can listen to here. He addresses some of the groups opposed to the legislation, as well as the upcoming plans for the House Game & Fisheries Committee in tackling the legislation.

NRA News recently conducted an interview with Rep. Evans on his effort to recruit more co-sponsors on his Sunday hunting bill. Specifically, host Cam Edwards gets to the root of why sportsmen in Pennsylvania want to see this change.

As of the end of June, here are the representatives who have stepped up to support your right to hunt alongside Rep. Evans:

“The Board of Commissioners for the Pennsylvania Game Commission declares its support for a repeal of prohibitions on Sunday hunting by the amending of Title 34 (Game) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statues in Hunting and Trapping.

“Whereas, Pennsylvania has experienced consistent declines in hunting participation by both resident and non-resident hunters over the past several decades, with both the number of license sold and revenues generated experiencing steady declines, and

“Whereas, youth participation is vital to maintaining the long-standing tradition of hunting in Pennsylvania, we can effectively double the number of hunting days for youths during the school year by offering Sunday hunting, and

“Whereas, Sunday hunting is an effective means of recruiting new hunters and retaining current hunters by increasing the value of the hunting license through offering additional opportunities to spend time in the field, and

“Whereas, many Pennsylvania residents seek hunting opportunities and hunting leases in neighboring states that offer Sunday hunting; Sunday hunting will keep Pennsylvania hunters in Pennsylvania, and

“Whereas Pennsylvania has a long-standing tradition of hunting camps and clubs, Sunday hunting will effectively double the number of hunting days for camp owners and club members, and

“Whereas, Sunday hunting is expected to generate a substantial increase in out-of-state license sales and the accompanying revenue for the Pennsylvania Game Commission, and

“Whereas, hunting license sales and their associated federal matching funds are the primary revenue source for the Pennsylvania Game Commission in carrying out its mission, including maintaining 1.5 million acres of state game lands and acquisition of additional public lands, research and management of wildlife and providing information and education to the public, and

“Whereas, Sunday hunting will provide substantial economic benefits to rural areas and businesses by increasing money spent by hunters on lodging, food, gas and other incidental items, and

“Whereas, Sunday hunting is expected to generate $629 million in additional spending and create 5,300 new jobs, resulting in $18 million in additional sales and income tax, and

“Whereas, the mission of the Pennsylvania Game Commission is to manage wildlife and its habitat for current and future generations, and

“Whereas, Sunday hunting, which is currently permitted to control a growing population of coyotes, will provide the biologists of the Pennsylvania Game Commission a new tool to manage wildlife populations, and

“Whereas, the forty-three states that currently permit Sunday hunting have not experienced any discernable impact on the health or vibrancy of game populations, and

“Whereas, the Board of Commissioners recognizes the authority to permit Sunday hunting lies entirely with the General Assembly of Pennsylvania, and

“Whereas, if the General Assembly repeals the restrictions on Sunday hunting thus giving authority to regulate Sunday hunting to the Board of Commissioners, the Board recognizes the many stakeholder groups any action on Sunday hunting will effect and will endeavor to engage these stakeholders before passing any new regulations in regard to Sunday hunting.

“NOW, THEREFOR, we the Board of Commissioners for the Pennsylvania Game Commission, do hereby urge the General Assembly of Pennsylvania to REPEAL the PROHIBITION ON SUNDAY HUNTING IN THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA.”

From Rep. Scott Perry:

“It is a great day for Pennsylvania. I am grateful to Governor Corbett for signing the original Castle Doctrine into law. This will enable law-abiding citizens in our Commonwealth to defend themselves in the face of violent attack. There are many people who worked very hard over the past few years to make this bill become the law of the land.

“Our citizens who work hard and abide by the rules of decent society deserve the protection of the law. They deserve our best effort, and it is gratifying that both chambers of the General Assembly and the governor agree with this. The bill enjoyed wide bipartisan support during the process of passage and I am grateful to all who backed this effort.”

From Rep. Seth Grove:

“Governor Tom Corbett’s signature on legislation that will allow law-abiding citizens to protect themselves is a victory for the people. The new law removes the duty to retreat and allows Pennsylvanians to stand their ground and fight off an attacker. This measure will allow an individual to take whatever action may be necessary to preserve his or her life and protect the safety of loved ones when legitimately threatened.

“This is one of the most popular proposals among York County residents. I have heard from so many people who are fed up with laws that protect criminals and ignore the rights of victims. The new law will provide civil lawsuit protection for those citizens who genuinely act in self defense and will hinder the attempts of criminals to seek jury awards for injuries they receive in the perpetration of a crime.

“I applaud Representative Scott Perry and all my colleagues in the House who came together to make this proposal a reality. It was a great blow to our civil rights when former Governor Ed Rendell vetoed this legislation last year, but Governor Corbett’s signature today goes to show that nothing can stand in the way of good policy.”

Rep. Grove also gave a live Facebook update while he was at the ceremony.

Rep. Stephen Bloom joined the live updates on his Facebook page, and he shared a picture of himself with several other lawmakers, NRA lobbyist John Hohenwarter, and Gov. Tom Corbett.

Rep. Keith Gillespie posted a similar picture with a number of House supporters of the bill and added this comment:

As one who would do all in my power to avoid taking someone else’s life but would protect my family to the death if necessary, I support House Bill 40, the Castle Doctine legislation. I was proud to today be in the company of Gov. Corbett as he signed the legislation into law.

Posting the same picture as Rep. Gillespie, Rep. Ron Miller added his comment:

As one of the cosponsors of House Bill 40, I was pleased to have been in attendance today as Gov. Corbett signed into law the Castle Doctrine legislation. 

Rep. John Evans also posted his comments on the bill from the signing:

The governor has signed the Castle Doctrine, which helps strengthen our right to using self-defense in the face of imminent danger. This is an important measure that we have been fighting for in the House for a long time. 

On the Senate side, a Democratic staffer tweeted this picture of two Senate supporters from the bill signing:

The NRA-ILA talked to Castle Doctrine sponsors and just released this announcement minutes after the bill was signed by Gov. Tom Corbett:

Governor Tom Corbett has signed Pennsylvania Castle Doctrine legislation into law. This common-sense measure permits law-abiding citizens to use force, including deadly force, against an attacker in their home and any place where they have a legal right to be. It also protects individuals from civil lawsuits by an attacker or attacker’s family when force is used.

“Gov. Corbett and Pennsylvania lawmakers know that law-abiding citizens must have the right to protect themselves when criminals attack without fear of being second-guessed by an overzealous prosecutor,” said Chris W. Cox, executive director, National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action. “Crime victims don’t have the luxury of time when confronted by a criminal and must be able to count on the law being on their side. This new law accomplishes that by removing any mandate of forcible retreat.”

The NRA has led the nationwide movement to pass Castle Doctrine legislation, beginning with Florida in 2005. Pennsylvania is the 27th state to adopt this important measure with overwhelming bipartisan support. House Bill 40, sponsored by Rep. Scott Perry (R-92), passed by a 164 to 37 margin. Richard Alloway, II (R-33), sponsored the companion bill to HB 40, Senate Bill 273, which passed 43-4.

“I am very gratified that Governor Corbett has signed this legislation into law, correcting the grievous error made by the previous administration in denying these long-sought protections to our citizens,” said Rep. Perry. “There are many people who have worked hard to get this legislation to this point, and I am grateful to my House and Senate colleagues and to the National Rifle Association for their support. The time has finally come to return common sense and good judgment to state government, and this legislation is a step in that direction. A criminal should never have an advantage over a citizen who abides by the rules of decent society, and today, we finally achieved the goal of returning the right of self-defense to the law-abiding.”

“Law-abiding gun owners should not have to fear prosecution for acting to prevent a violent crime,” said Sen. Alloway, who introduced Castle Doctrine legislation that was approved by the Senate in March. “I am thankful that the General Assembly has taken action to protect responsible gun owners who respond when facing a serious threat from a criminal. I would also like to thank the NRA for their strong leadership and hard work on this effort as it moved through the legislative process.”

“On behalf of NRA members and all gun owners in Pennsylvania, I would like to thank Rep. Perry; Sen. Alloway; and Gov. Corbett for their leadership in helping make Castle Doctrine a reality for Pennsylvanians,” concluded Cox. “This Castle Doctrine bill places the law on the side of law-abiding gun owners who unfortunately become victims of crime – exactly where the law should be.”

In addition to talking to the mainstream press, Gov. Corbett’s office also took to social media to spread the news with this post on Facebook:

Governor Corbett will soon sign into law the Castle Doctrine legislation that the Senate recently passed.

But anti-gun activists won’t let up. With biting commentary about lawful gun owners who choose to carry concealed firearms, they have taken to his Facebook page to respond. Here are a few of the comments from those looking to restrict our rights:

“Donna Fisher: Why do sane and sensible people have to be endangered by yahoo gun-slingers who let fear rule their lives?”

“Gavin Jensen: Good news for all those who live in the Yosimite-Sam-Dirty-Harry-gun-slinger fantasy world: you don’t have to wait for someone to come into your house before you shoot them. Now it’s legal on your front lawn! Why retreat when you can reload, right?”

“Jason Penopolis DeWitt: Actually I think Gavin has captured the overall direction of the bill. Instead of returning to your home at the first sign of trouble, you simply kill the person causing the trouble and label it “self defense”. Kill first, ask questions never.”

These are all people who clearly have not read the current law or the bill in question. Fortunately, more informed folks have made an effort to set the facts straight in the post, but it reminds us why we must contact even lawmakers who regularly support our rights and thank them for that support. We cannot let those who want to infringe upon our rights be the only voices our lawmakers hear in these debates.

The Sunday Hunting Coalition – a group of 14 organizations that believe the prohibitions on Sunday hunting that remains in only a handful of states should be overturned – points out that Pennsylvania would see a significant economic boost from expanding the number of days hunters are allowed to take to the fields and woods.

The estimated impacts from a lift on the ban on Sunday hunting are based on responses to surveys of hunters in Pennsylvania and North Carolina. In these two states, government agencies conducted extensive surveys of hunters in which they were asked to report the number of additional days they would participate in hunting if the Sunday hunting ban were to be lifted. Based on these responses, it is estimated that hunters will participate in, on average, about 22 percent of the additional days made available to them from the lifting of the ban. In other words, if the lifting of restrictions increased the number of hunting days by 10, the average hunter would increase their hunting days by about two.

Specifically, Pennsylvania would likely see a direct economic impactDirect impacts include jobs, output, and wages created from primary hunter expenditures ranging from licenses, ammunition, and hunting supplies to food, fuel, and magazines. that could create more than 4,400 jobs with wages topping $99 million. Of all the states with Sunday hunting bans or heavy restrictions, Pennsylvania stands to gain the most jobs and economic impact of a repeal of the prohibition. Neighboring states with similar bans such as New Jersey and Delaware would also see an economic benefit, but to the tune of only 560 and 225 jobs, respectively. Should Pennsylvania repeal the ban first, it is possible that the Keystone State could absorb more of those benefits as more out-of-state hunters are attracted to our state.

Blue laws, by definition, are extremely rigorous laws designed to regulate morals and conduct – often found in New England. They were enacted in order to restrict activity during the time that religious leaders believed citizens should be participating in religious activity. Many of these laws were repealed out of sheer common sense that we no long live in a world where influential leaders should be able to use government authority to promote their religious beliefs.

According to the Sunday Hunting Coalition, these laws started to fall in the late 19th century as they were challenged by business groups whose members were harmed by the forced closure. Their research shows that Pennsylvania is seriously behind on this trend of repealing these harmful laws since by 1970, only 25 states still had blue laws. By 1984, the number had fallen to only 13 states.

For many hunters, weekends are their only opportunities to get outdoors. Our Sunday hunting ban effectively cuts available hunting time in half for our sportsmen who already struggle to find the time and space to enjoy the hunt. For many, it also intrudes on their opportunities to invite friends or children along in order to share our outdoor heritage and pass it on to future generations.

Citizens who wish to attend the House committee meeting may do so on Thursday, June 9. The hearing will begin at 6:30 p.m. at the Seven Springs Mountain Resort, 777 Waterwheel Drive in Seven Springs.

Thanks to volunteer Adam Z. for coming out to the event with us and taking photos.

One of those rumors is that there is a deal in the works to pass so-called Florida Loophole (restrictions on reciprocity of concealed carry licenses) along with Castle Doctrine. I talked to NRA’s State Liaison, John Hohenwarter, this week and asked if there was a deal to amend the Florida Loophole in exchange for moving Castle Doctrine. He assured me that there is no deal in the works, and Castle Doctrine should be able to pass as a clean bill.

We have discussed the history that shows the Senate is a tougher landscape for pro-Second Amendment legislation than the House. It’s important that you call your State Senator and tell them you want Castle Doctrine passed. The more they hear from us, the faster this can happen. Keep in mind that our opposition’s goal is to drag things out as much as possible, in the hope of exhausting us, and turning us against each other. Unfortunately, from what I’ve seen, there’s evidence that tactic is working. We can get Castle Doctrine, but only if we keep marching in the same direction.

With the role of Attorney General, there are a number of ways in which decisions will impact gun owners. The most direct is through the power to sign & maintain reciprocity agreements with other states to honor concealed carry licenses. As Attorney General, Gov. Tom Corbett signed a number of these agreements. Whether Patrick Murphy would do the same, or even if he would consider revoking or revising agreements remains to be seen. Hopefully this is an issue the press & voters will have the chance to ask him about during the next 12-19 months of the campaign.

Another power of the Attorney General is to write or sign briefs going before the Supreme Court representing the interests of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. In the landmark DC v. Heller case which clearly articulated a right to own a handgun in your home for self-defense, then-Attorney General Tom Corbett joined 30 other states in defending the right to own a firearm. When it came to the similar brief filed by more than 300 members of Congress, then-Representative Patrick Murphy refused to sign. In fact his refusal to support an individual right to bear arms before the Court stands in contrast to the 13 Pennsylvania colleagues from both sides of the aisle who signaled their support. He also accepted campaign donations from the Brady Campaign who sided with the Washington, DC government officials who said there was no individual right to arms.

Though often a far less official role, the Attorney General may signal support or opposition to legislative positions. With Murphy’s record, we should question what this could mean for Pennsylvania. In 2008, he signed on to co-sponsor a gun ban that was so broad, it would have banned all semi-automatic shotguns. He may also influence policy in a more official role by refusing to get involved when local governments push the limits of the state’s preemption statute.

Fortunately, with a year to go before the party primaries, there’s plenty of time for conversation & action when more candidates have announced their intentions on running. However, if you’re a gun owner, especially a Democratic gun owner who plans to vote in next year’s primary, it’s not too early to start asking questions.

Last year’s battle had several hurdles that we had to jump before Castle Doctrine was sent to the Governor’s desk. In the Senate, we had time constraints because the House waited so long to act. As the clock ticked down to the close of the legislative session, support from expected allies began to fall away as poison pill amendments were drafted by opponents of the self defense reform package. Here is the summary from NRA lobbyist John Hohenwarter in an interview with another blog last fall:

The bill was passed by the House on October 5th and sent to the Senate where it was referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Now the stage was set for a battle in the Senate and it was time to turn up the heat.

With only three days left on the Senate schedule, there were now two options available. Our office decided that the first option would be to pursue a Committee vote on HB40 and send a clean bill to the Governor’s Office. However, this option had to occur on Tuesday, October 12th of the following week because of Constitution provisions that require a bill to be considered on three different days before being voted on the floor.

NRA was assured by Republican leadership that a vote would occur in committee on Tuesday to allow a sufficient time period for legislative consideration. However, amendments were now being drafted and efforts were underway to amend HB40 in committee with anti-gun/anti-hunting provisions. In addition, Republican support to kill the amendments in committee continued to dwindle throughout the day, which created a rift among Republican members.

At the time, Republican leaders who were not on the committee opted to pursue another strategy to pass Castle Doctrine by inserting the bill language as an amendment to another crime bill. By using this path to passage, Castle Doctrine would have a vote on the Senate floor instead of coming through a committee first – a move that ensured a clean bill. Opponents of Castle Doctrine did manage to draft language for one anti-gun amendment in time for a floor vote on the Castle Doctrine package, and it was voted down by the full Senate.

The Senate Judiciary Committee is still a potential stumbling block if gun owners don’t get involved in this debate. Senators Stewart Greenleaf and Mary Jo White are leaders of the committee, and supported the anti-gun amendment that made it to the Senate floor last year. With their support, anti-gun amendments could be attempted in committee again (and likely will be presented for discussion from anti-gun Sen. Daylin Leach). Another member of the Judiciary Committee is Sen. Vincent Hughes. We captured some of his remarks on the right to self-defense bill from last year’s debate:

In fact, based on last year’s vote to weigh Castle Doctrine down with anti-gun language, the vote of current members on the committee would likely be split. With action so early in the legislative session, gun owners should have enough time to make sure that their senators support a clean bill. However, if they don’t hear from us in Harrisburg, then our opportunity may be wasted.

Tomorrow’s step to pass Castle Doctrine is just the first of many we’ll have to take this session. As efforts to call a vote proceed, we’ll make sure to keep gun owners alerted so they can get their final phone calls in to members of the Committee & their local lawmakers.

Unfortunately, the PGC hasn’t posted information about the practical implementation of this new policy which has lead to some confusion. Here are a few answers to address questions & rumors that have come up in response to the new shooting range license.

When will the new shooting range licenses be required?
According to the PGC, a current hunting license, furtaker license, or range permit will be required on April 1, 2011.

When will the new range permit be available?
The permits will be available for purchase from their website on April 1, 2011. It will cost $30 for both residents & non-residents. The permit can be downloaded after purchase & printed on your home computer.

How long will the permits be valid?
For the first year, all permits will be effective from April 1, 2011, until June 30, 2012. After the first year, each permit issued will be valid from July 1 until June 30.

Will every shooter require a license or permit?
Permitted shooters will be allowed to bring one guest at no charge. Youth 16 years of age and younger are also exempted when accompanied by a licensed or permitted person 18 or over. In other words, you can still share the shooting sports with new shooters & bring your kids along.

What if I don’t have a computer or printer to purchase the permit?
The Harrisburg headquarters and regional offices will sell permits, but only with a credit or debit card. No other payment options are available.

What is the fine for not possessing a permit once they are required?
According to PGC staff, these details are still being worked out. Based on our reading of the relevant codes, the fine for non-compliance will be between $100-$200 as violation is a summary offense of the fifth degree.

Don’t we already pay for shooting ranges with taxes on our guns & ammunition?
Yes, but only to some degree. Pennsylvania’s apportionment from the Pittman-Robertson Act was about $11 million this year. That fund has to serve many needs for hunters, archers, and shooters. According to the Game Commission’s testimony in recent years, they have seen their budget remain steady for years even as costs have been rising. The current budget for maintaining ranges is around $200,000, according to the agency’s website. Some ranges have had to be shut down when expenses exceed the budget.

This interview covers some of the complexities of passing bills in Harrisburg, and juggling the inter- and intra-party struggles between the two chambers of the legislature. He also lets us know where to turn our attention in for future efforts to promote and defend the Second Amendment in the next legislative cycle.

My questions are bolded, with John’s answers in italics.

First, I want to thank you for taking the time to talk to my readers today. Can you tell us a bit about yourself, and your history with the gun rights issue here in Pennsylvania?

I was born and raised in Pennsylvania and currently reside in Lancaster County.  I’m a lifelong gun owner, hunter and shooting enthusiast.  I’m married and the father of three future hunters.  My professional experience is in the government relations field for the past 18 years, 12 years with NRA and six years for the Pennsylvania Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs.

The big question on everyone’s mind is Castle Doctrine. It’s been a long, hard fight to get it, but it’s finally on the way to the Governor. Can you describe the difficulties that were encountered getting this bill through to final passage?

Over the last several legislative sessions, there have been a number of hurdles with this legislation involving the House, Senate and Governor’s Office. This session, “Castle Doctrine” legislation was introduced in both chambers – HB40 (Perry-R) and SB842 (Alloway-R).  Both pieces of legislation were stymied in committee during most of the legislative session.

Over the last several weeks there has been much misinformation concerning NRA activity with this legislation.  Therefore, I think it is important to share with your readers a brief overview of what occurred with “Castle Doctrine” over the last several months and ILA’s roll in the process.

In May of this year, Chairman Caltagirone made good on his commitment to allow a House Judiciary Committee vote on House Bill 40.  The legislation was voted out of committee and referred to the House Appropriations Committee where it remained blocked for several months by Chairman Evans.

Because Chairman Evans refused to move the bill, Representative Perry filed a discharge petition to force a committee vote to move the bill.  However, before the discharge petition had the opportunity to be voted by the House, Chairman Evans agreed to a House Appropriations Committee vote that resulted in the legislation being passed and moved out of committee and placed on the House Calendar.

During this time frame, NRA was also working on an alternative plan in the Senate by advocating a “Castle Doctrine” amendment to HB1926.  This plan of attack was supported by Senator Alloway, who agreed to offer the amendment, and was seconded by some members of the Senate republican leadership team.  Not knowing the future of HB40 in the House, this course of action would allow another option to pass the measure before the end of the legislative session.

However, NRA had opposition from some leaders in the Senate who were uncooperative in this effort despite intense lobbying efforts and overall support by a majority of the members of the Senate.  In fact, NRA had a commitment from House democratic leadership on concurrence if the Senate would send the bill to the House.  The reason the House agreed to this process was because of the high probability that a House floor flight would occur on HB40 opening the door to a flurry of bad amendments. Unfortunately at the time, the Senate did not cooperate with this effort.

So with time running out, NRA continued to lobby the House to pass HB40.  Finally, the Democratic House Leadership agreed to forge ahead and scheduled a vote.  The bill was passed by the House on October 5th and sent to the Senate where it was referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee.  Now the stage was set for a battle in the Senate and it was time to turn up the heat.

With only three days left on the Senate schedule, there were now two options available. Our office decided that the first option would be to pursue a Committee vote on HB40 and send a clean bill to the Governor’s Office.  However, this option had to occur on Tuesday, October 12th of the following week because of Constitution provisions that require a bill to be considered on three different days before being voted on the floor.

NRA was assured by republican leadership that a vote would occur in committee on Tuesday to allow a sufficient time period for legislative consideration.  However, amendments were now being drafted and efforts were underway to amend HB40 in committee with anti-gun/anti-hunting provisions.  In addition, republican support to kill the amendments in committee continued to dwindle throughout the day, which created a rift among republican members.

Less than 10 minutes before the committee vote, Senator Alloway and I had a meeting off the Senate floor with republican leadership concerning the pending vote.  At that time, our concerns were confirmed that HB40 was in jeopardy and the committee did not have the support to kill several amendments filed to the bill.  It was at that time the decision was made by Senate leadership to pursue the second option, which was to amend HB1926 and battle the amendments on the floor where they could be defeated.

Fortunately, the amendment process for Castle Doctrine was successful and the anti-gun amendment (Florida Loophole) offered by Senator Leach was defeated and all other amendments were withdrawn.  House Bill 1926 was passed and sent to the House for concurrence.  And as we all now know, the House concurred this week on the measure sending it to the Governor for approval.

There has been considerable criticism over the decision to amend HB1926 with Castle Doctrine rather than pushing through HB40, can you explain what the reasoning was there?

This is as an example of the misinformation that I was referring to earlier. If House Bill 40 would have been voted by the Senate Judiciary Committee, “Florida Loophole” would have been amended into the bill by a vote of 8-6 and there is a good possibility that mandatory reporting of lost and stolen firearms, as well as a ban on pigeon shoots, would have be amended into the measure as well.  The following would have been the roll call vote on the Senator Leach’s “Florida Loophole” amendment in committee based upon the roll call that was taken on the Senate floor on the same amendment:

Therefore, a decision was made by Republican Leadership to avoid the committee process and vote down the same amendments filed to HB1926 on the floor.  This course of action could still get a bill to the Governor’s desk since the House had 5 days scheduled for session after the November election.  Keep in mind, without NRA orchestrating an “Option 2”, “Castle Doctrine” would have died that week in the Senate.

However, it is unfortunate that there was a breakdown in the republican controlled Senate Judiciary Committee which ultimately killed HB40.  As a result, the NRA-PVF lowered grades and removed endorsements from sitting Senators who were up for election this cycle.

Any word on whether Rendell signs or vetoes the bill?

At this time,  no one knows what Governor Rendell will do.  I do believe that a veto is being considered and I ask all NRA members, gun owners and anyone else who values self-defense contact the Governor’s Office.

The Senate certainly presented some obstacles for getting Castle Doctrine passed. Any fear that the political climate in the Senate could get worse for gun rights? What are some things activists can do to help?

After going through this latest exercise in the Senate, we need to solidify support for a pro-gun agenda in the Republican Caucus.  NRA members and gun owners should contact their Senator between now and next year to reaffirm their support for protecting the 2^nd Amendment.

There has been criticism by some that NRA hasn’t worked well with other organizations here in PA. Is NRA willing to work with other groups?

Contrary to the criticism, NRA makes it a point to work with grassroots organizations not only in Pennsylvania but around the country.  We are fortunate to have some outstanding activists and organizations in the state that make the phone calls, write the letters, and otherwise engage with their elected officials.  These individuals make our job a lot easier.

I know at times it can be frustrating to some activists that not all the insider information is shared with the grassroots.  However, this is not always possible, and most activists recognize the nature of the business.  In fact, NRA’s legislative strategy is often so sensitive that wide knowledge could jeopardize the final outcome.

For example, when HB40 came up for a vote on the House floor, only a few people knew that republican leadership intended use House Rule 61 to cut off debate.   Our office was privy to this information; however, to send out an alert about this tactic would have jeopardized the legislation.

At the end of the day it’s about getting the job done and not about who gets the credit and I believe most activists and organizations are on the same page.

There are a lot of other issues facing Pennsylvania once we get Castle Doctrine passed. Can you discuss what might be future legislative priorities?

As you know, there are a number of issues on the horizon affecting gun owners and sportsmen in Pennsylvania.  For example, the usefulness of PICS, problems associated with lawful transportation of firearms, strengthening of the preemption statute and many others.  Our office will be looking at all these issues and others to prioritize our efforts for the next session.

Thanks for taking the time to talk to my readers today, and I hope we can get an opportunity to do this again sometime.

I want to thank you for the opportunity to discuss these important issues and look forward to a successful 2011-12 legislative session.

MAIG Mayor: John Callahan
In a surprising margin of 15 points, Bloomberg’s ally in Bethlehem went down to stinging defeat to NRA-endorsed Rep. Charlie Dent. Gun owners turned out big in this race thanks to the work of NRA’s campaign field representative program, and we made sure to protect our Congressman who stands up for the rights of the district’s sportsmen and gun owners. This seat was a priority for gun owners in Pennsylvania due to the outside funds flowing in to unseat Rep. Dent and replace him with an anti-gun extremist.

CeaseFire PA & Brady Campaign Voter Fund Backed: Bryan Lentz
What what expected to be one of the closest races in Pennsylvania resulted in an 11 point lead when gun owners worked to get out the vote for Pat Meehan who was endorsed by NRA. Lentz staked the end of his political career on calls for more gun control by trying to undermine concealed carry reciprocity and working with various anti-gun groups to advance their wishlist in the state house. Those groups were certainly hoping to bring that kind of cooperation up to Congress, but through the volunteer efforts of NRA members and other active gun owners, we made sure that his antics were stopped.

Bloomberg & CeaseFire PA Backed: Dan Onorato
Dan Onorato, no matter how many commercials he ran telling us how to say his name, couldn’t get any traction in his campaign. Even though he had an advantage of the most competitive primary back in March that resulted in more candidate forum appearances and news coverage, his campaign could not excite his Democratic base, independents, or crossover Republicans. In a desperate attempt to seem relevant again, Onorato jumped on board with Bryan Lentz’s crusade to attack gun owners. The nine point loss to NRA-endorsed Attorney General Tom Corbett who has a record of going after criminals who misuse guns speaks volumes as to how well that campaign tactic worked.

Bloomberg & Brady Backed: Joe Sestak
With the Brady Campaign actively campaigning for him, Mayor Bloomberg coming to Pennsylvania for him, and CeaseFire PA actively targeting his opponent, Joe Sestak was the poster child for the gun control representation in Pennsylvania’s 2010 elections. When debating Arlen Specter, Sestak wouldn’t even acknowledge self-defense as a lawful reason to own firearms – a position that clearly put him far out of the mainstream in legal circles and with voters. With NRA members turning out in droves to support Pat Toomey, we can now look forward to one more vote in the US Senate.

CeaseFire PA Backed: Paul Drucker
Once a proud supporter of CeaseFire’s extreme policies, Paul Drucker was sent back home by voters this week. During his short term, Rep. Drucker consistently voted against our self-defense rights in committee and on the floor. NRA members came out in support of his A- rated opponent, Warren Kampf, to drive him over the margin for victory. Gun owners in the district now have a friend of their rights in office to rally behind.

CeaseFire PA Backed: Rick Taylor
Defeating an incumbent is usually tough, but when NRA members know that their rights are on the line, they’ll turn out to get the job done against an anti-right lawmaker. When Rep. Taylor won by only 419 votes in 2008, there was an opportunity for a rematch. While NRA members didn’t know where Todd Stephens stood on their issue at the time, in 2010, we learned that he scored an A- on his questionnaire and earned the NRA’s endorsement. This year, we welcome Stephens to the legislature and look forward to his support.

CeaseFire PA Backed: Mark Painter
With no history on our issue, it was unknown early in the campaign whether or not Painter would stand up for what is right or reach out to gun control advocates. He opted to refuse any questions from NRA members and reached out to CeaseFire PA, a move that won him no love from gun rights advocates in his district. Rep. Tom Quigly has a record, and earned the support of NRA in this race. NRA members made sure to reward his support and sent Mr. Painter back home.

CeaseFire PA Backed: Shannon Meehan
Gun control groups cannot bring out the votes for candidates, even in suburban Philadelphia. Meehan learned that lesson when he went up against NRA-endorsed Rep. Nicholas Micozzie. Eager to make sure that their Second Amendment rights and outdoor heritage were protected, NRA members helped Rep. Micozzie cruise to victory this week.

Other Losses for Mayor Bloomberg
Earlier this year, gun owners in the 14th Senate District sent Bloomberg ally Tom Leighton back to his hometown in his Democratic primary. They made sure that the Senate seat remains in pro-gun hands by electing Rep. John Yudichak. In the same corner of the state, one MAIG mayor realized that his affiliation with the gun control group tied him to far more restrictive policies than he would otherwise support. (With a C rating from NRA, he still wouldn’t be considered a regular ally of gun owners.) Bill Goldsworthy dropped out of the group when he sought higher office, but it was not enough to overcome the incumbent in Tuesday’s general election. However, with one less mayor fighting to advance Mike Bloomberg’s extreme agenda, gun owners are still better off.

These aren’t the only losses suffered by Bloomberg, his new group Americans United for Safe Streets, his old group Mayors Against Illegal Guns, the other group he’s funding CeaseFire PA, and his ally the Brady Campaign. However, this is just a sample to illustrate what gun owners can do when we work together.

With more than 130 co-sponsors, or 65% of the House members by the end of the House debate, it would appear that momentum was on our side when the bill was referred to the Judiciary Committee in January of 2009. No hearing was held until November of that year, with testimony from a variety of self-defense advocates, including Daniel Pehrson of the Pennsylvania Firearm Owners Association and John Hohenwarter of the NRA. Many more months passed before the bill was passed by the Judiciary Committee in May, after intense pressure from gun owners around Pennsylvania. It would be the first of two times the anti-rights leaders in the House would try to connect the bill with anti-gun legislation.

Unfortunately, the bill was then held up by the Appropriations Committee who does not support the Second Amendment, and, based upon his attitude and votes on Castle Doctrine, the right to self-defense. He refused all calls from gun owners and fellow lawmakers to release the bill for a vote until his hand was called by the bill’s primary sponsor with the threat of a discharge petition. Only when this petition was facing floor action did Rep. Dwight Evans agree to even allow a vote on the bill in his committee. He held true to his word the following day, September 29, 2010 – more than four months after his committee received it. With the release also came word that members of the House from the Philadelphia area planned to add between six to eight gun control amendments to the unrelated self-defense bill.

When the bill was allowed for second consideration on the House floor, Rep. Sam Smith pulled a procedural motion that limited debate and pointed out that none of the proposed amendments had anything to do with the nature of the bill – self-defense laws, not gun laws. The amendments were temporarily killed, and the legislation received the support of 156 members of the House. The following evening, the House took up the bill again – much to the chagrin of Philadelphia area lawmakers. They stood up to object, and the atmosphere was nearly riotous compared to the normally quiet tones in the chambers. One member shook his cane above his head as he made an impassioned plea to adjourn rather than allowing the pro-rights House members to vote for Castle Doctrine. Others raised their voices and objected to the idea of leaving the chambers simply to avoid a vote on an uncontroversial issue. In the end, the bill passed with even more support from the night before – 159 to 38.

While Rep. Todd Eachus accused the bill’s sponsors of being “heavyhanded” by using procedural moves to demand a swift vote, the better question might be whether the small number of opposing members truly used the heavy-hand by refusing to allow any votes on the bill at all.

Now the bill moves to the Senate, and some press accounts indicate that sources within the chamber plan to move the bill quickly for a vote in the remaining days of the session.

In the meantime, here are how representatives from parts of Bucks, Montgomery, and Philadelphia Counties voted on your right to self-defense:

Rep. Gene DiGirolamo (R-18) – Yes, Co-Sponsor
Rep. Bernie O’Neill (R-29) – Yes
Rep. Steve Santarsiero (D-31) – No
Rep. Bob Godshall (R-53) – Yes, Co-Sponsor
Rep. Kate Harper (R-61) – Yes, Co-Sponsor
Rep. Matt Bradford (D-70) – Yes
Rep. John Galloway (D-140) – Yes (on earlier votes, absent for the final vote)
Rep. Frank Farry (R-142) – Yes, Co-Sponsor
Rep. Marguerite Quinn (R-143) – Yes, Co-Sponsor
Rep. Katherine Watson (R-144) – Yes, Co-Sponsor
Rep. Paul Clymer (R-145) – Yes, Co-Sponsor
Rep. Thomas Quigly (R-146) – Yes, Co-Sponsor
Rep. Marcy Toepel (R-147) – Yes
Rep. Mike Gerber (D-148) – No
Rep. Rick Taylor (D-151) – No
Rep. Thomas Murt (R-152) – Yes
Rep. Josh Shapiro (D-153) – Yes
Rep. Larry Curry (D-154) – Yes (final passage only, opposed on earlier votes)
Rep. Dennis O’Brien (R-169) – No
Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-170) – Yes
Rep. John Perzel (R-172) – Yes (on earlier votes, absent for final), Co-Sponsor
Rep. Mike McGeehan (D-173) – No
Rep. John Sabatina (D-174) – No
Rep. Michael O’Brien (D-175) – No
Rep. John Taylor (R-177) – Yes
Rep. Scott Petri (R-178) – Yes, Co-Sponsor
Rep. Tony Payton (D-179) – No
Rep. Mark Cohen (D-202) – No
Rep. Dwight Evans (D-203) – No

You can learn more about the opponents running against those who voted against us on our candidates page.

In the meantime, please take a few minutes to thank the members of the legislative branches of government who worked on our behalf to encourage the Supreme Court toward this position.

US Senate
Bob Casey

• Facebook

Arlen Specter

• Twitter – @SenArlenSpecter
• Facebook

US Congress
Jason Altmire

• Facebook

Christopher Carney

• Twitter – @ChrisCarneyPa10
• Facebook

Charlie Dent

• Twitter – @DentforCongress
• Facebook

Jim Gerlach

• Twitter – @JimGerlach
• Facebook

Tim Holden

• Twitter – @TimHoldenPA17
• Facebook

Paul Kanjorski

• Twitter – @kanjo4congress
• Facebook

Patrick Murphy

• Facebook

Tim Murphy

• Twitter – @RepTimMurphy
• Facebook

Joe Pitts

• Twitter – @JoePitts4PA
• Facebook

Todd Platts

• Facebook

Bill Shuster

• Twitter – @RepBillShuster
• Facebook

Glenn Thompson

• Twitter – @CongressmanGT
• Facebook

State Officials
Tom Corbett

• Twitter – @CorbettforGov
• Facebook

Joe Scarnati

Karen Boback

• Facebook

Michele Brooks

Bryan Cutler

• Twitter – @RepBryanCutler
• Facebook

Bill DeWeese

Glen Grell

• Facebook

Rob Kauffman

• Facebook

Mark Keller

• Facebook

John Maher

Daryl Metcalfe

• Twitter – @DarylMetcalfe

Merle Phillips

Kathy Rapp

RoseMarie Swanger

• Facebook

Will Tallman

• Facebook

Katie True

Well Dan Onorato is blaming Tom Corbett for the so-called “Florida Loophole,” showing that the candidate for governor in 2010 is not shy about sending his gun control views up the flag pole. This is in contrast to Ed Rendell, who conveniently dropped the issue like a hot potato during his 2002 and 2006 runs.

The biggest flaw in Onorato’s argument? Gun owners with concealed carry licenses are more law-abiding than the general population. The second biggest flaw? Tom Corbett was not yet in office to sign the Florida reciprocity agreement in 2001.

I’m convinced that Ed Rendell has convinced fellow Democrats that the NRA can’t touch them. His evidence? His two terms, and Barack Obama’s ten point win in this state. Except Rendell ran against two lackluster candidates, and so did Barry. Corbett isn’t a weak candidate. He’s a hard campaigner and a good fundraiser.

It’s absolutely important we send Dan Onorato packing this fall, or it’s going to be over for us in Pennsylvania. Democrats will say the NRA can’t hurt them, only then they will be right.