Gun Owners Alliance ~The Rest of the Story!~ "A no-compromise Gun Lobby for the Nation!"

HISTORY OF PA ACT 17

Contact Michael J. Slavonic, Jr. acsl@nauticom.net
 

A number of gun owners have asked, How did Act 17 happen? Who were those responsible for the amendments to House Bill 110, and what groups really supported this law? The following is the documented account, beginning in June of 1993 with the City of Philadelphia banning 67 so-called Assault weapons, that eventually cumulated in the passage of ACT 17.

When the City Council of Philadelphia passed its ordinance enacting a ban on 67 semiautomatic firearms sportsmen, lead by the Philadelphia Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs, filed suit to block the implementation of the ordinance. They hired the law firm of Richard Sprague, a prominent law firm in Philadelphia to challenge the ordinance. Not only was Sprague one of the best law firms in Philadelphia, he was one of the most expensive. The legal fees mounted, and the local sportsmen pleaded for financial assistance. The Allegheny County Sportsmen’s League responded with a donation of $2,000.

Sprague filed a lawsuit against the City on behalf of a Philadelphia gun dealer. In court he introduced motions that the ordinance was in violation of section 6120, the state’s preemption Act. He argued that the city had no statutory authority to enact such a ban, and section 6120 prohibited such an ordinance. Under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Cities and municipalities in Pennsylvania are creatures of the state. They cannot enact any ordinances unless the state has provided them with statutory authority to do so.

The City responded that they did have the authority for the ban, and that authority was found in Section 908, the Prohibited Offensive Weapons statute. The city argued that section 6120 only governed handguns or short barrel rifles and shotgun and not "assault weapons". They explained to the court that these types of firearms are offensive weapons, and their possession can be regulated under the Offensive Prohibited Weapons statute. The Court Agreed, and upheld the City’s right to enact the ban. The Sportsmen immediately appealed the case to Commonwealth Court.

The court was obviously stretching the intent of Section 908, the NRA argued that such an interpretation of Section 908 was not the intent of the legislature when it enacted this provision. In fact none of the firearms that were banned could be considered as prohibited offensive weapons. Many in the legislature were surprised at the courts interpretation of this section, and agreed that the General Assembly never intended for this section to give permission to ban any type of firearm. In order to prove this the NRA went into action and moved to amend a title 18 bill, HB 185, in the Senate that passed the House of Representative and was being considered in Committee. The NRA amendment was to add language to clarify exactly what the legislature intended when they enacted section 908 and section 6120.

A friendly Senator added a subsection 3 to this provision that said, "This section shall not apply to any person who makes, repairs, sells or otherwise deals in, uses or possesses any firearm for purposes not prohibited by the laws of this Commonwealth". In addition Section 6120, Limitation on Municipal Regulation of Firearms and ammunition was amended, that no municipality can regulate the possession of firearms "except as authorized by the Title." In other words, if the Uniform Firearms Act does not prohibit the possession of semiautomatic military look-alike firearms, and local government has not been give statutory authority to regulate firearms, than the possession of such firearms are legal, and no local government has the authority to enact an ordinance otherwise.

The amended bill was moved to the floor of the Senate and passed 45 to 2 in June of 1993. When the bill arrived in the House it was sent to the rules committee, which at that time was chaired by anti-gun state representative Ivan Itkin. Itkin, a supporter of a ban on so-called assault weapons, was resolved to allow the bill to die in committee. Because Itkin was an Allegheny County legislator, the Allegheny County Sportsmen’s League sent a letter dated September 12, 1993 asking Itkin to move the bill out of committee. In our letter we requested a meeting with Mr. Itkin. Our offer to meet with him, and our letter, were ignored.

Unable to budge Itkin several pro-gun legislators started to gather signatures for a discharge petition to force the release of the bill from the rules committee. Realizing that the lawmaker may be successful, and knowing if the bill was discharged is this manner would be an embarrassment to Itkin, he agreed to release it to the floor. But not before the anti-gun forces were given time to muster their troops.

In the mean time Pittsburgh City Council President Jack Wagner introduced an ordinance in City Council on October 13, 1993 to enact a ban on so-called "Assault weapons" in that city identical to that in Philadelphia. It was soon becoming obvious that the intent here was to show statewide support for such a ban at the state level. It was immediately apparent that the ordinance would pass and the Allegheny County Sportsmen League immediately approved hiring of a local pro-gun attorney to begin preparing a challenge to the ordinance when it would be approved the City Council. Even though the passage of the ordinance was inevitable, the ACSL put together a coalition of sportsmen and gun owners, and prepared testimony to oppose the ordinance at the scheduled hearing to be held on November 18 1993. Even though there was a 2 to 1 majority of citizens testifying against the ordinance the Council voted 5-3 to approve.

Following the passage of the Pittsburgh ban, the stage was set for anti-gunner in Harrisburg to begin their next move. With House Bill 185 now released to the floor of the House with an open rule, the bill was now fair game, and the anti-gun forces were prepared to offer amendments to ban so-called assault weapons. An amendment was offered on December 13, 1993 by Rep. Dwight Evans from Philadelphia and Michlovic from Pittsburgh, and cosponsored by Representatives Hughes, Ritter, Murphy (the present Mayor of Pittsburgh) Rooney, McNally, Carn, Josephs, Thomas, Coats, and of coarse Ivan Itkin to ban 67 semiautomatic firearm. The amendment was modeled after the legislation that was similar to that enacted in New Jersey.

Handgun Control, Inc. mounted a strong campaign to frighten legislators in to supporting the Michlovic amendment by giving legislators a packet of 67 (8 1/2" by 11") pictures of semi-auto versions of assault rifles. In spite of this tactic the amendment failed on December 15, 1993 by a vote of 83 yeas and 115 nays. The concern was that on October 16, 1989 a similar amendment also offered by Michlovic was defeated by a wider margin of 61 yeas to 137 nays. In 1993 we lost 22 votes. The republicans, fearing that their vote against the ban would be highlighted during the Christmas recess, agreed to support and amendment to HB 185 offered by then Majority leader Matthew Ryan to ban only 15 types of semiautomatic firearm. The House supported the Ryan amendment by a 101-95 margin. The bill was tabled, and scheduled to be revisited when the legislators returned after the Christmas recess in February of 1994.

That vote angered gun owners in Pennsylvania because it had support from some state-wide sportsmen groups. The anti-gun Pittsburgh Post Gazette ran a story on December 19, 1993 "Bill divides State's Gun Lobby." The story reported that Charles Bolgiano, then president of the Unified Sportsmen of Pennsylvania said that the USP "would support the Ryan proposal in hopes of ensuring the passage of legislation to pre-empt local gun control laws." Bolgiano was quoted as saying, "there should be one gun law for this state. We don't want a mishmash of laws". He went on to further state that "There are thousands of non sportsmen in this state. We want to show good faith --that we share" their concerns about escalating violence." Also, in the Philadelphia Inquire for December 17,1993 Boligiano was quoted that the majority of the directors (of the USP) agreed that some assault weapons "should be removed from society. "The paper reported the Allegheny County Sportsmen's League's legislative committee chairman Mike Slavonic as taking the position that the ACSL "would rather see a bill to ban local gun control laws die in the Legislature, if it included the Ryan proposal."

In a memo from Rep. Matthew Ryan's office, acquired by the Pennsylvania Sportsmen’s Association, Cadimus said that the groups supporting the Ryan ban were the NRA, Pennsylvania Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs and the Citizens for the preservation of Rights. All three of these groups plus the Unified Sportsmen of Pennsylvania we appointed to represent gun owners on the Select Committee to Investigate the Use of Semiautomatic and Automatic Firearms". Although the NRA and PFSC denied this allegation Jon Mirowitz admitted on several occasions that he did approve of the Ryan motion, but refused to confirm the presence of the other organizations.

During the Christmas break the leadership of the Allegheny County Sportsmen’s League met with State Representative David Mayernick in the West View area of Pittsburgh at his request. Mayernik brought with him the photographs of the 67 semiautomatic firearms distributed to the House members by supporters of Handgun Control, Inc. At that meeting Mayernik expressed his fears that if gun owners do not develop a strategy to effectively oppose HCI, we were going to be facing some type of ban. We then offered him the following approach.

The ACSL established a temporary committee of firearms experts, mostly gun collectors, who were very familiar with the 67 guns and would research each firearm and add to each photograph information showing the cost, availability and number of occasions such firearms have been used in crime. The ACSL would pay to have the photographs and the attached information copied and sent to the floor of the House of Representative to be distributed to each member when the House returned after the Christmas recess.

In addition the ACSL asked Rep. Mayernick if he would consider introducing a resolution in the House to establish a special committee, consisting of elected member of the General Assembly and of both sides to the gun issue (Sportsmen and gun prohibitionist). The purpose of this special committee would be to conduct hearings, similar to those that the state of Florida held in 1989 with their "Assault Weapons Commission. "Mike Slavonic of the ACSL then contacted Marian Hammer, second vice president of the NRA and executive directors of the Unified Sportsmen of Florida and request she sent us a copy of the enabling legislation that formed the Florida Assault Weapons Commission. . Mrs. Hammer was a member of the Florida Assault Weapons Commission herself faxed the information to Slavonic on January 3, 1994.

The ACSL was convinced that the only way HCI would be successful in banning these firearms if they were to continue to be allowed to maintain the environment of confusion and lies that these firearms were a major contribution to the crime problem. We were convinced that once the legislature had the facts, they would not support a ban. If the special committee did their job, the information generated would kill the so-called "assault weapons" issue forever.

Following the meeting with Mayernick, Mike Slavonic reported to Dr. Alan Krug what they were planning to do, and Krug approved the approach. Slavonic also discussed his strategy with Rep. Robert Godshall and after some convincing he also agreed to the approach. Godshall told Slavonic of a very little used motion that may be attempted when the House returned in February. This procedure was to move to revert HB 185 back to a preset prior printer's number to remove the Ryan ban and Godshall waiting period of the purchaser of semiautomatic rifles amendments. Once that was successful, pro-gun legislators would move forward. However, all agreed that if this effort was successful, Rep. Dwight Evans was prepared to introduce the wider ban on semiautos and we would have to deal with that with throwing the HCI photograph back in the face of HCI with the additions of the facts showing that such a ban would be useless.

On February 1, 1994 a motion was moved on HB 185 to revert to prior printer's number 2105 and the motion passed 126 to 72. The anti-gunners motion to table the bill failed 51 yeas to 146 no. Next Rep. Evans moved his ban on Semi autos, this time we were even more successful, and his amendment, A5105, failed by a vote of 63 yeas to 135 nays. Most notable about this vote is that we recovered the 20 votes we lost on an identical amendment by Rep Michlovic back on December 15, 1993. The house then voted 134 to 63 on final passage of HB 185, and sent the bill back to the Senate for reconsideration. Next the House took up House Resolution 242 to establish the Special Select Committee to investigate the Use of Semiautomatic and Automatic Firearms in Crime. That resolution passed without debate overwhelmingly. Both bills moved to the Senate were they sat until the ACSL went into action.

Several months passed and no action was taken on either bill. Senator Mike Fisher was campaigning against Congressman Tom Ridge, Ernie Preate, Tom Katz and John Perry. Fisher was running in third place and need help. At this time NRA had not taken a position on the race, and Fisher was looking for the NRA's endorsement. He asked Mike Slavonic to intervene with NRA and try and get the endorsement. Slavonic told Fisher that he would do everything he could but Fisher had to do something to increase he chances to get the endorsement, and that was to move HR 242 to the floor of the Senate for a vote. Fisher agreed and the resolution passed the senate on April 26, 1995 41 to 4. Shortly after that NRA endorsed Fisher and although he didn’t win the endorsement boosted him up 11-percentage point in the vote. Some time went by until the legislature began the process of appointing members of the Select Committee. Finally on July 20, 1994 announcement of the formation of the committee was reported in the Pittsburgh Tribune Review.

Appointed to the Select Committee were Senator Vincent Fumo (who later was elected as chairman) Sen. Heckler, Sen. Robert Robbing, Rep. Harold James, Rep. Merle Phillips, Lynne Abraham - Pa District Attorney's Association, Officer John Cannon - Fraternal Order of Police, Daniel Delcollo - Unified Sportsmen of Pa., John M. Hohenwarter - Pa Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs, Robert Holste - Office of Attorney General, Alan Krug - National Rifle Association, Jon Mirowitz - Keystone Citizens for the Preservation of Rights, George Mock - Pa Game Commission, Daniel Siegel - Handgun Control, Inc., Col. Glenn Walp -The Governor's Office (Gov. Casey).

At the inaugural meeting of the Committee Sen. Fumo announced that a series of hearings would be held throughout the state beginning on August 16, 1994 in Pittsburgh. At that time testimony would be heard from both sides of the issue in order for the committee to receive facts surrounding the use of so-called "assault weapons" in Pennsylvania. At that meeting Dr. Alan Krug, representing the NRA, was quoted as saying that he did not support conducting hearings. He said that hearings were not need, and the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review for July 20, 1994 quoted Krug as saying, "We already know people's opinions. There have already been hearings before the state House and Senate Judiciary committees". What Krug did not understand was that we now had a chance to bring in bon-a-fide experts on the assault weapons issue. People who could testify with verifiable facts based on hard data. Professional criminologist who’s reputation was at stake in the issue. Not just newspaper reporter publishing misleading information in the Atlanta Constitution. With this information published in a report with the seal of Pennsylvania on the cover, the assault weapons issue would be dead forever. Any attempt to repeal the federal assault weapons ban could be accomplished with such a document.

Because Dr. Krug would be out of town for the first hearing, which were to be conducted in Pittsburgh, NRA Director Mike Slavonic was approved to replace Dr. Krug at the hearing. When Slavonic contacted Sen. Fume’s office to confirm the hearing date, he was asked if he could assist the committee in obtaining witnesses for the time slots in each of the five areas. He was told that Dr. Krug office would not cooperate with them. So working in cooperation with the staff of the committee Slavonic was successful in having the committee invite testimony from some of the top pro-gun experts on the assault weapons issue ever collected together at one time to submit facts to a legislative body anywhere in the country. Even the Florida Assault weapons Commission never hear from many of those who testified in Pennsylvania. The pro-gun movement had a golden opportunity to finally put the nail in the coffin of the assault weapons issue.

Amongst those who testified were Dr. Gary Kleck, Neal Knox, Dr. Edgar Suter in Pittsburgh. In Philadelphia were Suzanna Gratia, Second amendment scholars Robert Cottrol and Nicholas Johnson, Constitutional expert Stephen Halbrook, Researcher David Kopel. In Harrisburg Pro-gun Carnegie Mellon Professor Dr. Preston Covey (Dr. Covey was the litagant in the lawsuit against the Pittsburgh assault weapons ban), Second amendment scholar Don B. Kates, Jr. Professor of law at Northwestern University Daniel Polsby. Also in Harrisburg at the second day of hearing was Professor James D. Wright author of the infamous study "Armed Criminals in America". It was this study that showed proof that gun control law we in effective in reducing crime.

At the first day of hearings Governor Casey attempted to upstage the hearing by having the Pennsylvania State Police release data from the last five years on the number and types of firearms used in crime. The governor attempted to use those figures to support the call for his legislation to ban certain so-called assault weapons as defined in his bill HR 2600. According to the State Police assault weapons represented 13.4 percent of all firearms used in crime in Pennsylvania over the past five years. The key to the state Police’s figures were knowing which type of firearm the state police were claiming were these so-called assault weapons.

Professor Kleck, a noted expert on the assault weapon issue was asked by Senator Fumo to review the Governor’s data. He was the first to testify before the committee in Pittsburgh. Using the state police’s own report, and using the definition of assault weapon most commonly used in the Feinstein amendment and the New Jersey ban, Kleck reported that actual so-called assault weapons use in Pennsylvania was actually less than ? of one percent of all violent crime in Pennsylvania. Prompting Sen. Fumo to state, he thought that the state police should take a better look at their figures.

Most of the testimony before the committee showed clearly, that so-called assault weapons are not the favorite firearms used in crime as claimed by HCI. In fact, using the State Police’s own data, the so-called assault weapons are used less in crime than the lever action marlin hunting rifles. But none of these facts were ever to see the light of day.

Even though all of the experts that testified before the committee address the assault weapons issue, behind the scenes politics reared it ugly head. Unknown to those other then members of the Select committee work was being done to draft a gun control bill instead of drafting a report on the findings of the Select Committee as required by House Resolution 242.

If was not until Sen. Sen. Mike Fisher’s office forward a copy of a draft to this gun bill to Mike Slavonic was if first uncovered that no report would be forth coming form the committee. Fisher’s office requested of Slavonic to review the draft and pass our comments on to Fisher.

Slavonic contacted the Director of NRA-ILA State and Local Affairs Randy Kozuch to ask if NRA was aware of this proposal coming form the committee. Kozuch acknowledged that they were aware of the proposal but assured Slavonic that they were monitoring the situation.

Slavonic then contacted Christopher Craig, legal counsel for the Select committee and inquired when the "report" of the committee would be made available. Craig said that they will be working on the report, and as soon as it was ready he would forward a copy to Slavonic. Slavonic persisted and finally Craig admitted that no report would be forth coming. Slavonic insisted that the committee was charge with publishing a report, and such language was clear in the resolution. Craig continued to deny that the Committee was required to issue a report.

Then on November 14, 1994 the Select Committee met in Harrisburg, at what most member of the committee believe was to be a working meeting. Sen. Fumo had plans to hold a final vote on the Legislative Recommendations and he was going to do this with all of the State’s media present. This was obviously an attempt to intimate the other members of the committee to support a motion to approve the Legislative Recommendation his office had drafted. The committee voted 13 yes, 1 no vote and 1 abstention. The no vote came from Jon. Mirowitz and the abstention came from Dr. Krug representing the National Rifle Association. Supporting the total revision to the Uniform Firearms Act were representatives of the Unified Sportsmen of Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs, the Pennsylvania Game Commission and the Fraternal Order of Police.

Almost immediately Fisher’s office sent a copy of the Legislative Recommendations to Mike Slavonic for his comments. Slavonic did a quick review, and sent a letter to Fisher explaining that the language was a move toward more gun control, and the Allegheny County Sportsmen’s League would have to oppose these recommendations should they be placed in bill form.

Slavonic also contacted Kozuch to inquire as to what went wrong. Kozuch was please to say that he had told Dr. Krug to abstain from supporting the motion became Krug was going to vote yes. The question remains is whether Krug was told to abstain because the bill was bad, or because Slavonic found out what was in the Recommendations.

The one thing that important to note is that the statewide sportsmen groups have never voted opposite of NRA on a gun issue. Certainly, Kurg’s abstention allowed the Recommendations to go forward and still left NRA with the option to make technical changes to those areas that received the most opposition.

In the last days of the legislative session Sen. Fumo attempted to have the Legislative Recommendations attached to a bill and force them to become law. NRA objected, saying that while we support 95% of what is in the bill, the bill is not finished, and minor changes must be made. NRA never came out against the bill in spite of many of the problems.

The next year Governor Ridge’s promised Special Legislative Session on Crime began on day one. Legislation would be introduced either in Special Session No 1 or regular session. Bills introduced in regular session could have identical numbers as those in Special Session No. 1, and be totally different legislation. Special Session bill were printed on yellow paper, and had the term "Special Session NO. 1" preceding the bill number. Senator Fumo and Rep. James both introduced the Legislative Recommendations as Special Session NO. 1, Senate Bill 6 in the Senate, and Special Session No. 1, HB 47 in the House.

Shortly after introducing Special Session No. 1, SB-6 Sen. Fumo met with Governor Ridge and convinced Ridge to support SB-6 even though it contained a waiting period that NRA was opposed to. When Fumo had Ridge’s support he immediately told the media that Ridge was in support of SB-6, and he wanted Senate action. At a news conference on January 18, 1995 Governor Ridge was asked if he favored keeping the 48-hour waiting period, Ridge responded that "Historically that’s been very much of Pennsylvania’s past. And matter of fact, I think one of the pieces of legislation that Sen. Fumo had recommended sustained that 48-hour waiting period and I favor keeping it". NRA immediately contacted Ridge’s office and told them that Ridge should not support SB-6 because it contained a waiting period in addition to the instant check systems, and NRA wanted the waiting period taken out. Ridge’s staff agreed to issue a clarification to Fume’s claim.

NRA stood steadfast that the only problems with SB-6 was the waiting period, but the ACSL stood by its position that SB-6 should be opposed also because of numerous problems in other sections of the bill. Finally, a frustrated Fumo went on a media blitz to gather support for his legislation, even going so far as to liable the NRA leadership "Pigs". This of coarse didn’t win him any friends.

Even though the legislation was at an impasse NRA still attempted to meet with Fumo to iron out their difference. It would have been a notable accomplishment for NRA to have Fumo agree to practically rewriting SB-6, became that is what it would take to remove the objectionable language in the bill. On February 12, 1995 Mike Slavonic, on behalf of the Allegheny County Sportsmen’s League sent a letter to Dr. Krug informing him that in the opinion of the ACSL NRA should oppose SB-6 flat out.

But NRA would not take that position. Slavonic was told that NRA was meeting with Fumo to come to an agreement on a number of the objectionable provisions in SB-6. NRA’s Director of State and Local Affairs, Randy Kozuch, continued to assure NRA Director Mike Slavonic that all of Slavonic’s concerns would be ironed out in the meeting with Senator Fumo. NRA wanted Fumo on-board, and sometime in April a strategy was worked out to bring SB-6 up for a vote. An agreement was reached with the Republican leadership that Rep. Robert Godshall would introduce a shell bill. The bill, which was to become HR 110, would be moved quickly through the House and on to the Senate as quickly as possible. House Bill 110 was a simple one-page amendment to section 6117 Altering or Obliterating marks of identification.

All sportsmen groups would be contacted and asked to contact their legislator and ask them to support HB 110. The ACSL received a fax from the Pennsylvania Liaison on May 2, 1995 with a request to contact legislator on HB 110. Due to time constrains we never got a chance to do so until the next day on May 3. When we began to place calls on May 3 we found that the bill had already passed the house and moved rapidly on to the Senate. HB 110 moved through Appropriations and Rules committees rapidly and on the floor were amendments, which had been prepared earlier, were to be offered to gut the language in HB110 and add an amendment by Senators Fumo and David Heckler with language very similar to SB-6. Then another amendment was offered by Sen. Robbins that had the full support of NRA and supposedly the full support of all sportsmen groups in Pennsylvania. The only problem at least 4 of the groups named on a NRA fax sent to the Legislature, and repeated on the floor of the House by Rep. Godshall did not support the amendments. In fact they never even notified about the amendments. The amendments were agreed on May 23, 1995 the bill then moved to the House. In the Rules Committee attempts were made to add various amendments, but they all failed. The Committee then released HB 110 under a rule that no amendments would be allowed when the bill was to be considered from the floor.

It was in the House were it faced its biggest debate. During those debates the bill was opposed by the state’s most conservative House member because it was too restrictive, and opposed by the most liberal because it did not contain a ban on assault weapons and it liberalize the Philadelphia carry provision. It was during those debates that Rep. Godshall was asked what Sportsmen groups supported the bill. Godshall responded by reading a list which included the Allegheny County Sportsmen's League, but finally the bill was passed and moved to the Governor office where Ridge signed it on June 13, 1995.