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.

Most in the media have made the assumption that Onorato is supportive of gun rights simply because he lives outside of the Philadelphia area.  If you look at the facts, those assumptions simply don’t hold water.  Looking back at the positions taken during the primary campaign, Dan Onorato was only outflanked on the left by Joe Hoeffel.  Post-primary, his positions are still more anti-gun than many of NRA’s most ardent foes in Harrisburg.

On this list of some of the “big” issues right now, Onorato has come out against gun owners 75% of the time. The other two issues are unknowns, or he would support other government officials in their quest for more gun control. That’s not what we usually consider “on our side” in the gun owning community.

Flipping the issue over to look at the issue from the gun control handbook from CeaseFirePA, their big issues show a similar breakdown. Onorato is with them 85% of the time, and they classify the remaining 15% of the positions as unknown – not in opposition to their agenda. Only Joe Hoeffel scored more points with CeaseFirePA. Though Sen. Tony Williams did tie with Onorato, he took a firmer stand against their policies when he didn’t agree with the gun control group.

Another way to look at Onorato’s position is to compare them to recent votes in the Judiciary Committee of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives. To prove the comparison of being with the pro-gun side of the Democratic Party false, I’ve broken these charts down by NRA grade. All lawmakers are Democrats.

This table shows that Onorato is farther to the left on recent gun rights policy debates than two of the four F-rated lawmakers on the House Judiciary Committee.

Looking at some who probably fall on the left of the issue, and another lawmaker who falls squarely in the middle of the issue based on previous grades. Onorato’s policies fall in line with the D- legislator, but he’s exactly the opposite of two other D legislators and our single C-rated representative on the committee. That doesn’t seem to be very pro-gun.

All of these lawmakers are probably the “right flank” of the gun issue for the Democratic Party since they are all A-rated or higher. Most of them carry the NRA’s endorsement. And yet Dan Onorato doesn’t agree with them on anything – from banning guns to gutting gun laws to even a law dealing with self-defense in your own home.

The only truth you may hear is that Onorato’s running mate, Scott Conklin for Lt. Governor, has held a high NRA rating in the past. That is the truth, and he has even carried their endorsement in his race for state representative. Unfortunately for Rep. Conklin, due to the policy proposals of his gubernatorial running mate, it is likely that NRA will not support his run for higher office this year. The Republican candidate for Governor, Tom Corbett, has an excellent record on the Second Amendment issues we’re facing today, and has enjoyed the endorsement of NRA in previous statewide elections.

“So they essentially get a ‘get-out-of-jail free’ card when they’re stopped carrying a loaded firearm. They produce a Florida permit and our local law enforcement must honor that which is unacceptable given the arrest record and the background of many of these individuals.”

See, you get out of jail free, because you flash a legal license. Everyone knows, of course, the default for carrying a gun should be to go to jail.

He says the Sunshine State is less strict when it comes to handing out permits, looking only at convictions and not a person’s character.

The Sunshine State is not less strict. They require training, fingerprinting, and a 120 dollar application fee. So far they can point to one bozo out of thousands in the Commonwealth who have Florida licenses. Most Florida license holders, including myself, also have PA LTCs, and only retain Florida’s CWL for expanded recognition from other states.

Philadelphia sure does look at a person’s character though. Unpaid parking tickets? Well, no, you can’t have a permit. What kind of person owes the City of Philadelphia money? Had a gun stolen once? Well, we can’t have you exercising your right to bear arms. You’re not a suitable person.

The UFA, namely the Amendments of Act 17, were supposed to make Philadelphia shall-issue like the rest of the state. But they haven’t. Philadelphia routinely revokes permits for trivial and unlawful reasons. They represent only a smal fraction of statewide permit holders, yet represent a hugely disproportionate numer of revocations. Why do some people seek recourse in a Florida license? Because it’s cheaper than hiring a lawyer to fight a denial or revocation.

Lentz and all his gun hating buddies in the General Assembly need to understand this very simple fact: We’re going to flip the House back this fall, and if you shove this down our throats, we’re going to shove a whole lot of things down your throats you aren’t going to like, which include eliminating or severely limiting the discretion local jurisdictions may exercise in issuing Licenses to Carry Firearms. You want us to be responsible with guns, we’re going to demand officials be responsible with the law. If they can’t be, we’re going to change it.

Among the worst of the three gun bills, HB 1044 would have ended preemption in Pennsylvania. Philadelphia would have had the authority to abuse lawful gun owners even more than they try to do now. Fortunately, thanks to the hard work of gun owners who called, emailed, and tweeted lawmakers, it failed 20-6.

More good news for gun owners comes in the defeat of HB 1045 that would arbitrarily ban some semi-automatic rifles around Pennsylvania. We already saw the failure of the Clinton Gun Ban in the 1990s, and this bill would have been even more useless – beyond outlawing guns in many lawful collections across the Keystone State. The gun ban failed 20-6.

In a sneaky move to create new government staff positions that would promote gun control full-time, HB 1043 was framed as a new “firearms czar,” a bureaucrat who would look for ways to curb gun sales in Pennsylvania on the taxpayer’s dime. Fortunately, this sneaky trick failed by a vote of 17-9.

In a bit of really bright news for gun owners, Castle Doctrine moved in an overwhelming vote. The 22-4 vote won over even poorly rated lawmakers from the Philadelphia area. The only votes against it were from Representatives Paul Drucker, Kathy Manderino, Greg Vitali, and Ronald Waters.

Interestingly, Rep. Drucker (Chester & Montgomery Counties) proudly boasts of his endorsement & support by gun ban groups. It seems like a bold move for a lawmaker who only won his seat in 2008. As a Democrat, he rode the wave of support, but with only 707 votes. He will face Republican Warren Kampf, a Tredyffrin Township Supervisor. While not all candidates in the district have historically been pro-gun, sending Drucker home in November is feasible. It would, at the very least, make sure he is no longer promoting the anti-gun agenda for CeaseFirePA.

In the other races, Rep. Kathy Manderino is retiring at the end of her term. Rep. Greg Vitali has seen significant victories in recent years, enough to warrant consideration for a Congressional run last year. Rep. Ronald Waters is a lawmaker who rarely event draws a challenger. So while some entrenched anti-gun votes aren’t so easy to remove this November, at least a few are up for serious challenge. Let’s make them remember this vote. If they don’t support our rights to self-defense, then we should send them home.

Tomorrow, the House Judiciary Committee is scheduled to vote on Castle Doctrine legislation – a move we’ve been waiting on since November 19 when they held a hearing! However, it comes at a price.

In addition to the vote on the important self-defense reforms, the committee is planning to vote on three anti-gun bills on the same day!

Contact the members of the House Judiciary Committee today. Tell them that you want their support on HB40 – the Castle Doctrine bill. This specific Castle Doctrine bill will ensure that law-abiding gun owners can feel safe knowing that they can defend themselves from attackers whether it is inside or outside your home. It also protects citizens from the expense of fighting civil lawsuits filed by criminals or their families when self-defense was justified.

But tell them that they must vote down the three gun control bills:

• HB1043 which would create a “Firearm Trafficking Czar” and lead to another bureaucratic agency looking for ways to restrict gun sales in Pennsylvania.
• HB1044 that would end preemption and allow cities to create their own gun bans and carry rules, and
• HB1045 that would arbitrarily ban certain semi-automatic firearms in the Keystone State.

Self-defense reform should not come with a price that includes gun bans, wasteful spending on a new government-funded anti-gun leader, and gutting our state’s gun laws.

Contact the members of the House Judiciary Committee today. Based on the response to Castle Doctrine in other states, we know that gun control groups will get involved in this fight, making it seem as if we will have gun fights on every street corner. As we know, such dire predictions have yet to come true. Make sure you voice is heard! Call, e-mail, or even tweet – just make sure your voice is heard!

Email the Judiciary Committee in two clicks!

Click here to view the embedded video.

Click here to view the embedded video.

We previously covered how easy it is to engage lawmakers and help candidates through technology, even if you’re busy with work and family. If you have used these tools and opportunities, we want to hear your story.

You can also “like” us on Facebook to get updates right in your stream – we’ll publish photos as soon as we can share them.

If you can’t make it down to the Capitol today, please take a moment to contact your lawmakers and let them know you’re with us in spirit and want to see Castle Doctrine moved through the House and Senate. Remind them that for every one gun owner who could turn out, there are thousands more supporting the rally from home or the office, and we’ll remember their action come November.

[Comment From Adam Z]
Hello, I have asked this question to some of the other candidates so here is the question…Could you please state your stance on Gun Owners Rights? For example, there is a current piece of legislation in the PA House – HB 40. Here is a summary of the bill, as a reference point…”Short Title: An Act amending Titles 18 (Crimes and Offenses) and 42 (Judiciary and Judicial Procedure) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, further providing, in general principles of justification, for definitions, for use of force in self-protection, for use of force for the protection of other persons and for licenses to carry firearms; providing for civil immunity for use of force; and further providing for sentences for offenses committed with firearms. ” In other words, this is a type of “Castle Doctrine” legislation where someone would be protected legally if they were defending themselves or loved ones not only in their homes, but also out in public. This legislation would stipulate that the person defending themselves could not be the agitator or instigator of said event and also not engaged in any type of illegal activity. Also, it would protect individuals in civil court from being sued from families of criminals during the process of roberry or some sort of criminal acitivity. Could you please explain your stance on this piece of proposed legislation and your opinion on rights of Gun Owners in general?

Tom Corbett: I support the use of force, including deadly force when warranted, within the home.
Tom Corbett: I am a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment and am a lifetime member of the National Rifle Association, which is why I have tripled the number of concealed carry reciprocity agreements and signed on with Attorneys General to challenge the handgun bans in Washington DC and Chicago.

According to Adam, he submitted a follow-up question that was not published. It may have been due to the fact that Attorney General Corbett got to up leave the chat before final questions were even posted and without acknowledging those who took their lunch hour to learn more about him.

Today, Micek welcomes Attorney General Tom Corbett to the online roundtable. Gen. Corbett’s last grade with the NRA was an A+.

If you plan to submit any questions relevant to sportsmen, let us know on Twitter @PAGunRights.

[Comment From Adam Z]
Hello, I have asked this question to some of your fellow Democratic candidates so here is the question…Could you please state your stance on Gun Owners Rights? For example, there is a current piece of legislation in the PA House – HB 40. Here is a summary of the bill, as a reference point…”Short Title: An Act amending Titles 18 (Crimes and Offenses) and 42 (Judiciary and Judicial Procedure) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, further providing, in general principles of justification, for definitions, for use of force in self-protection, for use of force for the protection of other persons and for licenses to carry firearms; providing for civil immunity for use of force; and further providing for sentences for offenses committed with firearms. ” In other words, this is a type of “Castle Doctrine” legislation where someone would be protected legally if they were defending themselves or loved ones not only in their homes, but also out in public. This legislation would stipulate that the person defending themselves could not be the agitator or instigator of said event and also not engaged in any type of illegal activity. Also, it would protect individuals in civil court from being sued from families of criminals during the process of roberry or some sort of criminal acitivity. Could you please explain your stance on this piece of proposed legislation and your opinion on rights of Gun Owners in general?

Dan_Onorato: Adam Z: I support the 2nd Amendment and our sportsmen’s culture in Pennsylvania. I also support an individual’s rights to defend their homes — and current law allows you to do that, I do not believe we need to change that law. In addition, I believe we must also support common-sense measures to improve public safety — including a requirement to report lost-and-stolen handguns, child safety locks, and local options.

[Comment From Adam Z]
Thank you for your answer. So does your answer mean, that you are in favor of ending the PA State Preemption within the Commonwealth’s Constitution in regards to firearms legislation?

Dan_Onorato: [Silence]

Adam’s question was the only one that Onorato refused to address during the entire hourlong session.

Today, Micek continues talking to the Democratic candidates with Dan Onorato. He has previously hosted Auditor General Jack Wagner, Joe Hoeffel, Senator Tony Williams and Republican candidate Representative Sam Rohrer.

Onorato launched a full-fledged attack on gun rights when he called for an end to preemption in a gubernatorial debate, and then followed up with an indication that he would erase the rights of self-defense for anyone with a minor in the home.

Click here to view the embedded video.

If you plan to submit any questions relevant to sportsmen, let us know on Twitter @PAGunRights.

[Comment From Adam Z]
Hello, Could you please state your stance on Gun Owners Rights? For example, there is a current piece of legislation in the PA House – HB 40. Here is a summary of the bill, as a reference point…”Short Title: An Act amending Titles 18 (Crimes and Offenses) and 42 (Judiciary and Judicial Procedure) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, further providing, in general principles of justification, for definitions, for use of force in self-protection, for use of force for the protection of other persons and for licenses to carry firearms; providing for civil immunity for use of force; and further providing for sentences for offenses committed with firearms. ” In other words, this is a type of “Castle Doctrine” legislation where someone would be protected legally if they were defending themselves not only in their homes, but also out in public. This legislation would stipulate that the person defending themselves could not be the agitator or instigator of said event and also not engaged in any type of illegal activity. Also, it would protect individuals in civil court from being sued from families of criminals during the process of roberry or some sort of criminal acitivity. Could you please explain your stance on this piece of proposed legislation and your opinion on rights of Gun Owners in general?

Anthony Hardy Williams: I fully respect those who adhere to the Second Amendment. It is one of our many birthrights as Americans. However, I do not support House Bill 40. We have laws on the books that allow you to protect yourself in your home and outside your home currently. Police officers across the Commonwealth have openly opposed this type of legislation and said that it doesn’t make any individual or community safer. In fact, it erodes the quality of life in such communities.

Most of Pennsylvania is quite happy with the quality of life they enjoy compared to Philadelphia’s crime problems. As the source of most of the Commonwealth’s criminal activity, many gun owners would like the be secure in their right to defend themselves.

In addition, Williams was asked to comment on municipalities who violate state law by passing local gun control. NRA has sued the city of Pittsburgh for their violation of state law and the Supreme Court decision in Ortiz v. Commonwealth.

[Comment From scott]
In PGH, the NRA is suing the city for requiring people to report lost or stolen guns within 24 hours. They say it requires an inventory. The suit got tossed on technical grounds (no standing) and now the NRA is appealing.Where do you stand on this issue?

Anthony Hardy Williams: Scott, I am a candidate in this race that recognizes that Pennsylvania is the No. 1 state for homicides among young African-American men, as a consequence of guns. For those who are not concerned about that, they should be concerned about commerce being able to operate effectively in Pittsburgh or as a visitor to the city, visiting the arts community on a night out, or an athletic event, or being outsides, as matters of safety. So it would seem that the NRA’s position on this is contrary to the Pittsburgh and Allegheny County’s larger interests of an ability to have a flourishing, commerce and a safer community.

I created an illegal gun task force in Philadelphia County, which has removed thousands of weapons from the streets and arrested hundreds of people. Pittsburgh deserves one and needs one from the next governor. Pittsburgh and Philadelphia and other communities affected by illegal gun trafficking should be supported by reasonable gun legislation such as New York State’s.

As we reported in the fall, 56% of Pennsylvanians oppose overturning this decision because it would mean a heap of differing gun laws in each township and boro across the Commonwealth. However, Sen. Williams has been on the record supporting such a change. It would mean Philadelphia could ban lawful concealed carry, Pittsburgh could ban the guns you use to hunt, and your local town could write transportation laws which would make traveling to the gun club unbearable.

However, considering Sen. Williams considers New York as a great model for gun control, gun owners should be concerned.

Finally, another commenter questioned the strategy of using gun control as an issue outside of Philadelphia:

[Comment From Bruce]
I have a question regarding your media strategy. You are running ads in the western part of the state talking about taking our guns. Do you think this is a good strategy and if so why?

Anthony Hardy Williams: Bruce, I don’t run any ads talking about taking guns away from anyone who LEGALLY owns a gun. But if you are an illegal gun owner, or distributor, you need to go run and hide.

Actually, Sen. Williams went on the record recently demanding that Philadelphia should have the right to revoke the Second Amendment on a discretionary basis for any resident of their city. He also calls for local communities to have the power to ban lawful carry and ownership within their borders. It really sounds like LEGAL gun owners might also want to run and hide from his campaign.

Today, Micek continues talking to the Democratic candidates with Senator Tony Williams. He has previously hosted Auditor General Jack Wagner, Joe Hoeffel and Republican candidate Representative Sam Rohrer.

Williams has targeted gun rights in his first commercial buy – pledging to end state preemption that makes sure we have clear, uniform gun laws across the state.

If you plan to submit any questions relevant to sportsmen, let us know on Twitter @PAGunRights.

[Comment From Adam Z]
Could you please explain you stance on the proposed PA House Bill 40? This is basically a “Castle Doctrine” piece of legislation that was introduced by PA Reprensentative Perry (92nd PA District) along with 56 other PA House Delegates. Here is brief description of the proposed bill if you are not familiar with it. “An Act amending Titles 18 (Crimes and Offenses) and 42 (Judiciary and Judicial Procedure) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, further providing, in general principles of justification, for definitions, for use of force in self-protection, for use of force for the protection of other persons and for licenses to carry firearms; providing for civil immunity for use of force; and further providing for sentences for offenses committed with firearms.” It is currently sitting in a PA House Judiciary committee. In other words, this proposed legislation would protect someone legally when they are defending themselves or loved ones not only in their home – since we already have that in PA – but also out in public if they felt threatened and were not the instigator or perpatorator of the aforementioned incident. This proposed bill would also grant civil court immunity to victims from the families of criminials who may decide to sue them after a crime has been committed. Could you please tell us your stance on this and simiar types of legislation?

Adam Z, the provisions on House Bill 40 seem excessive and unnecessary. The law has always recognized, as it should, the right for people to act in their own self defense. I favor legislation instead that will establish reasonable, common sense provisions to improve gun safety, such as one gun purchase per month limitations, requirements to report to the police lost and stolen guns, and allowing local governments to enact their own gun laws.

There was never much of a question that Hoeffel would take an extremist view on the subject and use the opportunity to call for more gun control. But the opportunity still gives us a better insight into the head of Joe Hoeffel. Supporting Castle Doctrine is not “excessive and unnecessary,” it’s a position that attracts Democrats and Republicans alike. Joe Hoeffel’s gun control rhetoric, on the other hand, is excessive and unnecessary.

Today, Micek continues talking to the Democratic candidates with Joe Hoeffel. He has previously hosted Auditor General Jack Wagner and Republican candidate Representative Sam Rohrer.

Hoeffel has called for every kind of gun control you can imagine. Review his background in our video from a Democratic debate earlier this year.

Click here to view the embedded video.

If you plan to submit any questions relevant to sportsmen, let us know on Twitter @PAGunRights.

[Comment From Adam Z] Could you please us tell your stance on the proposed legislation of Houe Bill 40 (HB 40) which modifies the “Castle Doctrine” in Pennsylvania to not only self-defense in one’s house but also anywhere you feel threaten in public and are not the instigator of said situation or event. It also protects people who are protecting themselves or loved ones from civil liability from families of criminals that may decide to sue you. Could you please elaborate your position on HB40 and that idea in general?
…
Auditor General Jack Wagner: Adam Z – I have not analyzed HB 40; however, I do believe that an individual should be able to protect himself or herself in his or her own home.

Today, Micek begins talking to the Democratic candidates with Auditor General Jack Wagner. He has previously hosted Republican candidate Representative Sam Rohrer.

If you plan to submit any questions relevant to sportsmen, let us know on Twitter @PAGunRights.

Here is the press release touting the Senate resolution:

State Senator Richard A. Kasunic (D-Fayette/Somerset) today proposed Senate Resolution 300, calling for the Pennsylvania Game Commission to return to its past practice of holding separate doe and buck seasons.

“Over the last few years, many hunters approached me with one complaint, all of them are seeing fewer deer during season,” Kasunic said. “These hunters are deeply concerned with the Game Commission’s deer management plan and the decreasing population of deer throughout the Commonwealth.”

Kasunic said, a recent report showed that the state’s white tailed deer population dropped by 25 percent between 2005 and 2007. He said continuing the current management plan would only further reduce the herd.

“It is time for the Game Commission to listen to sportsmen in the field and ensure our wildlife resources — not only for this generation, but for future generations as well.”

“Hunting is a great Pennsylvania tradition,” Kasunic said. “The sport has a $4.8 billion annual economic impact. We need to take steps to protect the integrity of the sport by strengthening the deer herd.”

Kasunic said he hopes the resolution will send a message to the Game Commission members, ahead of their scheduled meeting next week, to put the knowledge and interests of sportsmen over the failed management theories currently in place.

The crossroads of politics and wildlife management is often one the provokes debate from many shareholders – biologists, hunters, wildlife watchers, and politicians eager to serve their constituents. Given that this is a resolution and has only recently been introduced, NRA has not published an opinion on the move at this time.

Senator Kasunic has previously been rated A+ by NRA and faces re-election this year.