A legislative effort to restore the Pennsylvania Game Commission's authority in taking away the firearms of wildlife violators has failed.

Under pressure from some gun owners and sportsmen, the House Game and Fisheries committee is expected to remove language dealing with confiscation and forfeiture from House Bill 2205, which is aimed at overhauling penalties for poachers. The committee also tweaked the measure to go easier on first-time violators and get tougher on repeat offenders.

The bill could be voted on this fall, but, given the upcoming general election, it is expected to be reintroduced and acted upon next year. It would require both House and Senate approval.

Amending forfeiture from the bill increases its chance of passage, said committee chair Rep. Ed Staback (D-Lackawanna).

"The [forfeiture] portion of the bill became extremely controversial," he said. "Rather than see the entire bill destroyed as a result, we decided to remove all the [forfeiture] language, and deal with it in another bill down the road. For now, we want to focus on poaching."

Kim Stolfer of the Allegheny County Sportsmen's League and Firearms Owners Against Crime, concerned it would give the Game Commission too much power over personal property rights, lobbied the committee against forfeiture.

"Let's ratchet up the penalties and show we're serious about poaching," said Stolfer, of McDonald. "But leave asset forfeiture out of the game code."

The committee's minority chair, Rep. Sam Rohrer (R-Berks), said the bill's forfeiture language -- modeled after drug forfeiture laws -- was so vague it threatened "far too much of a real or potential infringement on citizens' rights."

In light of what he called a "demonstrated government aggressiveness" in recent years to compromise constitutional rights, "any legislation having to do with taking property away from individuals had better be very carefully crafted and considered."

Game Commission officials said the agency is only interested in firearms, jack lights and other property such as ATVs directly connected to serious violations, and offered to explicitly delete PennDOT-titled vehicles and real estate from the bill.

But that failed to assuage forfeiture critics.

"It would be like putting old tires on a brand new pick-up," said Stolfer.

The committee decided to delete forfeiture altogether and will be given an amended HB 2205 this fall.

The Game Commission had long standing forfeiture authority until 1990, when, in Commonwealth vs. Reeves, Commonwealth Court ruled the Game Code didn't provide for due process in keeping a violator's vehicle. The case involved an SUV defendant Gary L. Reeves used to transport poachers. Although he pled guilty, Reeves convinced the court the commission acted without statutory power in keeping his vehicle.

The ruling set precedent, stripping the commission of its forfeiture authority for everything except wildlife and wildlife parts, or obvious contraband, such as marijuana. Legal firearms, knives, spotlights and other items -- even when used unlawfully -- can be seized only for evidence and must be returned to the owner once a case is adjudicated.

Even with statutory authority, the commission would have to convince the court to order forfeiture, as a matter of constitutionally guaranteed due process.

"Without statutory authority, we can't even ask," said Game Commission assistant counsel Jason Raup. "And we haven't asked since Reeves."

Raup said he can recall just two occasions when a judge or district attorney ordered hunting weapons forfeited.

"There were other criminal activities beside wildlife poaching involved, and the guys did something so bad the DA or the judge found some other statutory vehicle with which to do it," he said.

Those cases dramatize the impact forfeiture can have, said commission law enforcement chief Rich Palmer.

"One guy was almost in tears trying to buy his two guns back from us," he said. "He had multiple offenses, a 60-year license revocation, and thousands of dollars in fines, but nothing got his attention like the forfeiture of his guns. His family was offering to pay us far more than they were worth."

The commission does not sell guns back to former owners.

Some critics of Pennsylvania's poaching laws regard the commonwealth as soft on poaching, as compared with other states, although HB 2055 would increase serious offenses to the level of felony and provide for harsher fines and jail time, which is not now allowed under the Game Code.

Separate legislation was introduced this year to enroll Pennsylvania in the Interstate Wildlife Violator Compact, which bans violators in one state from hunting in all member states. Pennsylvania is one of just a few states that hasn't joined.

Raup said forfeiture would have put more teeth in the anti-poaching package, which mostly targets serial offenders.

"Besides jail time and higher fines, they'd know they'd likely lose their weapon," he said. "We prosecuted one guy on three different occasions, and although he was found guilty, we had to give him back his crossbow."

Palmer said wildlife officers in other states tell him forfeiture is effective.

"License revocation and permanent forfeiture of firearms -- especially in states in the compact -- are the two big deterrents," he said. "Firearms are the No. 1 thing. People have a strong emotional attachment to their guns."

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department attorney Boyd Kennedy backs that up.

"We were pretty much where you are until the 1990s," he said. "Fines weren't making the serious offenses go away, so we raised the stakes."

The state legislature increased penalties for poaching, and broadened the wildlife department's forfeiture authority, he said. "Forfeiture is aimed at certain crimes, like hunting without landowner consent or with spotlights, or hunting from a car on the road. And it has worked. We've seen a decline in those offenses."

Col. Peter Flores, director of law enforcement for Texas Parks and Wildlife, agrees forfeiture hits poachers where it hurts.

"We took away a prized Browning rifle, [which] had belonged to a violator's granddaddy, for hunting without landowner consent," he said. "The guy was 27 [years old] but when he got out of jail, he was more afraid of facing his daddy over the loss of a family heirloom."

But Rohrer said what other states do has little bearing here, and the issues at stake affect more than gun owners.

"Every person who values a constitutional right," he said, "to travel, to speak their mind, to do anything -- had better be on heightened alert, because the evidence is clear that there is increasingly a disregard for those rights."