One Handgun a Month in PA

Status
Not open for further replies.
Pilot said:
Pensylvania is becoming more liberal. As more people move into the state from surrounding New Jersey and New York, the state, especially the eastern part is becoming another northeast bastion of liberalism. As the hunting culture also declines, I am concerned PA will become another NJ, NY, MD, etc. Keep up the fight guys!
Click to expand...

Not true.... I moved from NYC and got my CCW license. I know a number of people who moved to PA from NY and NJ and are pro guns....and got their CCW as well...
 
OK, I think I found the survey he was quoting:
http://edisk.fandm.edu/FLI/keystone/pdf/keysep05_1.pdf

The survey was of 650 adults, randomly dialed on the telephone. "The sample error for the survey is plus or minus 3.8 percent." "The sub-sample of registered voters includes 518 respondents." (240 Republican, 234 Democrats, 44 Independent/Other) Assuming I'm reading the survey correctly, the numbers quoted below are from all 650 respondents, not just the 518 registered voters ("N=650" - top of page 29). Also, "Final survey results were weighted to adjust for different selection probabilities and non-response."

On page 29:

Are you a gun owner?
34% Yes
66% No

Generally speaking, do you favor or oppose creating more laws that regulate gun ownership?
39% Strongly favor
16% Somewhat favor
13% Somewhat oppose
25% Strongly oppose
8% Do not know

So we have a whopping 38% of Pennsylvanians who at least "somewhat" oppose more gun control. Sad. At least it's not 2/3 in favor, as I initially thought, but still...

____________________
-twency

(Edited to correct spelling)
 
The problem is with that mystical image some people give about guns....Like guns are evil. Bottom line, it is a little bit like money. Money is not evil. Money is good for people if you know how to use it. But at the same time it gives you the power to do evil, like guns. Guns are not evil. People are.
 
Generally speaking, do you favor or oppose creating more laws that regulate gun ownership?
39% Strongly favor
16% Somewhat favor
13% Somewhat oppose
25% Strongly oppose
8% Do no know

So we have a whopping 38% of Pennsylvanians who at least "somewhat" oppose more gun control. Sad. At least it's not 2/3 in favor, as I initially thought, but still...
Click to expand...
Remember, though, that the average person thinks machine guns aren't controlled by Federal law; that a criminal can walk into a gun store and buy an M16, a military AK-47, or a full-auto Uzi with no background check; that handgun ammunition designed to penetrate Kevlar vests is sold in gun stores; and that .50 caliber target rifles can shoot down airplanes.

From my experience in discussing the gun issue on Democratic Underground and elsewhere, your typical person who advocates "more gun control" is actually quite content with the status quo, once they find out what is already covered by current law.
 
I just received a call back from Senator Vance's office (much faster than anticipated - kudos to them) and they indicated that if the bill come before the full Senate (it's in the Judiciary committee) she will vote against it. Here in largely rural central PA, I would hope so, but you never know.

_______________________
-twency

Edited to add:

If anyone else in PA wants to find out if their Senator supports this bill, and needs to find out how to contact their Senator, go to http://www.pasen.gov/, and use the "Find Members By:" box in the upper right hand corner.

Remember:
Section 2. All power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority and instituted for their peace, safety and happiness. For the advancement of these ends they have at all times an inalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think proper.
Click to expand...
 
40% of Bucks County adults have their CCW permit (according to the Bucks County Courier Times). I moved here last year from NJ, am dug in and will continue the fight for as long as physically able, if not longer. I'm picturing myself stuffed and armed 100 years from now.
 
The poll does show a good number of people in PA own guns. If you figure that PA has a population of about 12,500,000 in 2000. 34% of the population would be about 4,250,000 people. Not bad compared to Mass which has about 6,250,000 in population in 2000 and only about 200,000 people own guns, which is less than 4%
 
I have to call BS on those figures to. At least based on the county I'm from. If there was ever a war that reached that far in the US as to make it to McKean County, the invading army would be screwed. They would be better off (and smarter) to just go around us and leave us alone.

McKean County Rules!! Almost everyone there hunts or owns a gun. I say almost becuase not everyone is of age to legally buy a gun.
 
It's been one handgun a month for awhile now in California, but what happens here doesn't affect the 'free states', right? :rolleyes: Besides, no honest man needs more than one handgun a month. :neener:
 
jsalcedo said:
The "logic" behind these one gun a month laws is that it cuts down on straw purchases.

Since we already have laws against straw purchases, laws against criminals having guns, criminals commiting crimes and finally criminals commiting crimes WITH guns......what the heck is another law going to do?
Click to expand...
Straw purchases are illegal, yes, but how does an FFL know if it's a straw purchase? And even if he does know, is he compelled to do anything about it?

If someone comes in and fills in his purchase form (4473 or whatever) and on the question that says, "Is this a straw purchase", he answers "yes", then the FFL can deny the transfer and I think the guy actually gets in trouble for it. But if he comes in and buys a dozen of the same handgun, but says, "no, really, this isn't a straw purchase", well, unless there is some other good reason, like he's buying them all for his shooting range or his security company, then it is a straw purchase but the FFL isn't required to do anything about it.

Gun-per-month rules don't bother me because they make sense. Maybe there should be a provision so that someone who is buying them for some obvious reason, like a shooting school or a security company, can have an exception.

What DOES bother me are things like CA's "safety" tests and magazine ban, which do impact what I can and cannot buy.
 
"Dangerous weapon." A bomb, grenade, blackjack, sandbag, metal knuckles, dagger, [knife (the blade of which is exposed in an automatic way by switch, push-button, spring mechanism or otherwise) or other implement for the infliction of serious bodily injury which serves no common lawful purpose.] any knife, cutting instrument, cutting tool, nunchaku, firearm, shotgun, rifle and any other tool, instrument or implement capable of inflicting serious bodily injury.
Click to expand...
Better not bring any pens, Leatherman's, crochet needles, etc and don't expect to find any chairs, table legs, etc when you go to your jury duty.
 
ElTacoGrande said:
...Gun-per-month rules don't bother me because they make sense. Maybe there should be a provision so that someone who is buying them for some obvious reason, like a shooting school or a security company, can have an exception...
Click to expand...


It does bother me quite a lot by principle. I should be free to buy a gun whenever I feel like it. I may buy a gun In january then not buy any gun for 4 months and then buy 3 guns in July..... Why should the government decide when I can buy or not buy???
 
Funny, I really didn't consider buying anymore guns - I'm pretty well covered. But all of this talk about limiting my freedoms to do as I wish makes me consider the possibility of buying more guns. :what: :what: :what:
 
Just sent this to them.....

Senator Tomlinson,

As a local business owner, and registered voter in your district, I am writing to you today to ask you to vote NO on SB1002. This law, restricting gun purchases to 1 per month is antiquated, and rips at the fibers of the Second Ammendment.

South Carolina had a similar law, and recently removed it from the books, citing it as useless. I agree, and I urge you to vote NO on SB1002.

Signed. Me.
 
Gun-per-month rules don't bother me because they make sense.
Click to expand...
My wife owns two .22 handguns for target practice. She bought a Ruger Mark II first. She liked it, but it was a little heavy for extended practice. So she bought a little Airlite S&W to use as well. If I recall correctly, she bought them less than four weeks apart. We shouldn't she have been able to do that?

What right does the government have to tell me I can't buy two handguns within 29 days of each other? What right does the government have to tell me I can't buy two handguns within 29 seconds of each other? Some shooters like to buy matched pairs of handguns. (Some who participate in Cowbow Action Shooting competitions, among others.) What right does the government have to say they can't?
____________
-twency
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top