Gun grabbers on the attack in Pennsylvania

[Dan from MI]

But I thought Democrats where now pro-gun......

http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/111-01132007-1053218.html

Stiffer guns laws are not just a Philadelphia issue, according to newly seated state Rep. John Galloway. Illegal gun purchases and increasing violence is a big problem in Bucks County, too, he said.

Galloway, D-140, supports a number of bills backed by the Southeastern Legislative Caucus that would curb increasing gun violence.

He is primarily supporting a proposal to limit handgun purchases to one per month.

“In Bucks County, law enforcement officials are crying out for these reforms,” he said. “Gang violence and drugs are on the rise in Lower Bucks and the violence is all over the news in Bristol Township.”
(snip)

The 2007 Crime Package

Limit handgun purchases to one per month
Ban the sale of military-style assault weapons
Give police and prosecutors new tools for investigating crimes
Increase bail and sentencing for violent crimes and repeat offenders
Allow communities to enact their own gun laws
Require gun owners to file police reports when their guns are lost or stolen

Heads up folks.

 

[General Geoff]

I'm glad I bought my M1A already, that's all I can say.

I need to stock up on 20rd mags before they're banned.


That said, it might sound like they're on the war path, but this kind of legislation is tried all the time in PA. It never passes. It probably won't this time. But thanks for the heads-up.

 

[BADUNAME4]

If you're so inclined, email a very reasoned response to your State Rep and State Senator why one-gun-a-month and an AWB is a bad idea. Some are receptive and some aren't. Maybe you're one of the lucky ones.
A senior state elected official asked me to provide him with talking points which is evidence that the outcome is up to us. Get busy and stay focused. Pennsylvania's worth saving.

 

[Gildas]

If you're so inclined, email a very reasoned response to your State Rep and State Senator why one-gun-a-month and an AWB is a bad idea. Some are receptive and some aren't.

As I understand it because of the anti-incumbent wave in PA last year over some pay raise to legislators among other things, lots of stalwarts were replaced by unknowns.

Remember that unknowns often don't have a view on this issue at all, so the more well reasoned, concise and polite messages they get the more likely they are to side with gunowners.

They all entered politics for some reason, chances are unless we already know them as a pro- or anti-, their pet cause has nothing to do with guns, in which case they are a blank slate, ready to be persuaded on the merits of the argument.

 

[General Geoff]

My two legislators are Senator Pat Browne and Rep. Karen Beyer. I just sent them both a rather lengthy email regarding this proposed legislation. Here's the email:

Dear ------,

My name is Geoffrey ------. I'm a resident of the city of Allentown, residing at ----------. I'm writing this letter due to my concern about potential legislation in the form of what I've seen referred to as the "2007 Crime Package," referenced here (http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/111-01132007-1053218.html).

While I understand and respect the ideal of reducing gun crime, many aspects of this legislation only seek to limit the freedoms of law-abiding gun owners like myself. As the article summarizes:

1. Limit handgun purchases to one per month
2. Ban the sale of military-style assault weapons
3. Give police and prosecutors new tools for investigating crimes
4. Increase bail and sentencing for violent crimes and repeat offenders
5. Allow communities to enact their own gun laws
6. Require gun owners to file police reports when their guns are lost or stolen

Section 1, limiting handgun purchases to one per month, may seem like a reasonable idea, however in practicality it will have absolutely no effect on gun crime. The overwhelming majority of crimes committed with firearms are committed with illegally-obtained weapons. As such, limiting law-abiding citizens to one handgun purchase per month will only remove freedoms; it will not alleviate the problem for which it is meant.

Section 2, the banning of the sale of "military-style assault weapons." Not only is this very vague wording (I'd be very interested in seeing the precise wording of the proposed legislation if you happen to have access to it), but it also provokes fear, uncertainty and doubt in the minds of those people who are unfamiliar with modern firearms, prompting them to assume that such weapons are preferred by criminals. This couldn't be further from the truth. Assault weapons (as defined here: http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcassaul.html ) are used in 0.20% of all violent crimes and about 1% in gun crimes. Not only that, but a good portion of those that are used in crimes are, again, illegally obtained and as such would be unaffected by the proposed legislation. Another law that would only hinder the rights of law-abiding citizens, and not help alleviate crime.

Section 5, allowing local municipalities to enact their own firearms laws. This again would make a law-abiding citizen's life a nightmare, especially if he/she is the holder of a concealed weapons permit (approximately 7% of the PA population). As it stands, due to state preemption, all of Pennsylvania has relatively uniform firearms laws. This makes it easy to learn and understand what is and is not allowed when travelling throughout the state. If local municipalities are allowed to enact their own laws, not only will it not stop crime, but it will by definition increase crime, as previously lawful activities may become illegal, and unaware practitioners of said acts will then be breaking the law. On top of that, it is already illegal to use a firearm to commit a crime. Any person who is intent on using a gun to commit a crime will not be deterred by any local firearms laws.

Sections 3, 4, and 6 sound reasonable and I have no particular objections with them as per their wording in the article. However, Sections 1, 2, and 5 will not help to reach a goal of lower crime. Please consider my points about this legislation. Thank you for your time and reading this rather lengthy letter.


Sincerely,

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Allow communities to enact their own gun laws

Oh, yeah, THAT works well.

They should talk to the good folks in Ohio.

Seems that "local ordinance" concept makes a real mess of things.

Of course, that might be too much like actual facts.

 

[BADUNAME4]

The only people who will abide by one-gun-a-month legislation are law-abiding citizens. They are not the problem. But, you will absolutely see a massive and long-term spike in gun sales particularly from people who would likely otherwise never buy another gun. It's just basic human nature and gun shops statewide will be standing room only if one-gun-a-month goes through. Additionally, the black market will respond accordingly. Probably the single worst "anti violent crime" idea of all time.
Basic reporting will reveal that virtually no crimes are being committed with so-called "assault weapons" which are declared as such almost entirely based on cosmetic features. There's many readily available weapons that are much more powerful that don't fall into "assault weapons" guidelines that are also not the preferred tool of choice among criminals.

 

[The Lone Haranguer]

Like California would be much better off if Los Angeles and San Francisco slid off into the Pacific Ocean, PA would be a much better place if Philly slid off and floated down the Delaware River.

(native of CA)

 

[aka108]

Just received a notice for the North Nevada Rifle and Pistol Assn that if you go to Clark County, NV (Las Vegas area) and have a handgun and are there for a period of time in excess of 24 hours that your handgun must be registered with the Sheriff's office. Guess if you go there for a shoot you need to have papers. What next?

 

[LAR-15]

These proposals were largely trashed last year in PA.