alan
Member
Rep. Frankel's piece, see below appeared in today's Pgh. P-G. My rebuttal, a Letter to Editor follows, don't know if it will be published.
The aim is to stop killers, not hunters
Three handgun bills would save lives while doing nothing to infringe on the rights of Pennsylvanians
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
By Rep. Dan Frankel
As a member of the state House Judiciary Committee, I have received a tidal wave of public input on three handgun bills that Gov. Rendell and I support. Much of the comment was based on misinformation. I understand the concerns of sportsmen and other gun owners, and I am happy to tell them that their rights would remain safe if these bills become law.
State Rep. Dan Frankel, D-Squirrel Hill, is chairman of the 19-member Allegheny County Democratic delegation to the Pennsylvania House of Representatives (www.pahouse.com/frankel/).
The people who would be affected are criminals, who would lose the ridiculously easy access to handguns they have under current laws. They have been using that access to terrible effect. Already this year, the number of homicides by firearm in Pittsburgh is up more than 10 percent. And in just a one-year period, between 2005 and 2006, robberies with firearms were up 12 percent in Allegheny County, as the governor recently told the Judiciary Committee.
Here are some key points that are often overlooked:
• These bills would only affect handguns -- not hunters' rifles or shotguns. One bill would limit the purchase of handguns only -- not hunting weapons -- to one per month per adult.
As the Post-Gazette noted recently, that would still be 24 new handguns per year for a married couple. The limit would not affect shotguns or rifles used to hunt deer and other animals -- just handguns, which are used to hunt humans.
The goal of one-handgun-a-month is to shut off "straw" purchases made by people with clean backgrounds who give or sell these weapons to drug dealers, terrorists and others who can't buy them legally. The limit would not apply to law enforcement agencies, licensed dealers or people whose handguns are lost or stolen. Instead, it would allow us to knock out the illegal competitors of legitimate gun dealers.
• Right now, you have to report a stolen car, but not a stolen handgun. One of the bills recently voted down in committee would correct this bizarre law and require reporting of lost or stolen handguns within 24 hours. This would be a tool prosecutors could use to lock up straw purchasers, and it would help police to track and catch criminals who steal handguns from law-abiding owners.
As the governor noted, the Pennsylvania Association of Chiefs of Police and the Pennsylvania District Attorneys Association support requiring the reporting of lost and stolen firearms.
• Your community can vote to go "dry" on liquor licenses, but you and your neighbors have no local control over deadly handguns. The governor and I support a bill to enable local communities to enact their own limited restrictions on the flow, distribution and use of handguns, but only with local voter approval. This would allow cities like Pittsburgh to exercise local control against handgun violence -- without affecting people in rural communities.
Pennsylvania has already been doing more to enforce current laws, but police and prosecutors want and need these limited additional tools to keep us safe. As the governor testified, "Our law enforcement and our prosecutors are enforcing the laws on the books. They are aggressive, and their efforts have resulted in 16,000 additional criminals behind bars in the last decade ... The statistics indicate we have not slowed the problem of gun violence -- it's only increasing."
Most Pennsylvanians support common-sense handgun laws. Perhaps some opponents are so vocal because they are in the minority. A statewide poll of likely voters taken in February and March showed 71 percent support for a one-handgun-a-month limit -- including 61 percent support among gun owners -- and 81 percent support for requiring the reporting of lost or stolen handguns.
The governor, a former prosecutor, and I believe that none of these bills would affect the state or federal constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens. The polls show most Pennsylvanians appear to agree.
We already have two little-noticed victories to build on from the past two years, victories that show we can enact common-sense laws without affecting law-abiding gun owners. In both cases, legislators from both parties and organizations with widely differing views came together to improve the commonwealth's gun laws.
In 2005, the General Assembly passed a law that keeps weapons out of the hands of most people who are subject to protection-from-abuse orders. And earlier this year, we passed a law that requires police to trace the source of firearms illegally possessed by anyone under 21. That allows police to seek out and shut off those sources, such as theft or straw purchases.
Both of these laws focus on illegal and dangerous conduct, not law-abiding gun owners. Like the new bills, they focus on preventing murders, rather than having to mourn more victims and punish their killers after the fact. Now we need to make more common-sense changes to our handgun laws and save more lives.
First published on December 19, 2007 at 12:00 am
Editor:
There are two groups involved in the Gun Control fight. One is The Pro Gun Lobby. While I’m Pro Gun/ Pro Gun Rights, I speak only for myself, as a private citizen. The Anti Gun Lobby, which Mr. Frankel, obviously supports, is the other. What must be remembered is the often stated, ultimate goal of The Anti Gun Lobby, which from their own mouths are The Ultimate and Total Proscription of Firearms. The law abiding individual would be totally disarmed, Rep. Frankel's claims notwithstanding. I could stop here, however some additional points seem worthy of mention. Curiously Rep. Frankel overlooks them.
1. Firearms are both sensitive and valuable items. I suspect that the average law abiding gun owner, faced with the loss or theft thereof would, without legislative encouragement, report same to the police, especially since their purchase or acquisition might already be a matter of record, legislation barring establishment of a Gun Registry notwithstanding.
2. Straw Purchases, so often mentioned, are already a violation of existing federal law. There is also a long existing requirement in federal law for the reporting of multiple handgun sales/purchases. As memory serves, the purchase of 2 handguns within 1 week activates the reporting requirement of such sales, in writing, to Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE).
3. While the law abiding obey the law, criminals don’t. The enactment of laws that impact adversely on the law abiding serve only to amuse criminals. Provision of amusement for criminals proves quite costly to the law abiding.
The aim is to stop killers, not hunters. So states the headline of Rep. Frankel's piece. How come it turns out that the above mentioned "aim" is so poorly directed?
The aim is to stop killers, not hunters
Three handgun bills would save lives while doing nothing to infringe on the rights of Pennsylvanians
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
By Rep. Dan Frankel
As a member of the state House Judiciary Committee, I have received a tidal wave of public input on three handgun bills that Gov. Rendell and I support. Much of the comment was based on misinformation. I understand the concerns of sportsmen and other gun owners, and I am happy to tell them that their rights would remain safe if these bills become law.
State Rep. Dan Frankel, D-Squirrel Hill, is chairman of the 19-member Allegheny County Democratic delegation to the Pennsylvania House of Representatives (www.pahouse.com/frankel/).
The people who would be affected are criminals, who would lose the ridiculously easy access to handguns they have under current laws. They have been using that access to terrible effect. Already this year, the number of homicides by firearm in Pittsburgh is up more than 10 percent. And in just a one-year period, between 2005 and 2006, robberies with firearms were up 12 percent in Allegheny County, as the governor recently told the Judiciary Committee.
Here are some key points that are often overlooked:
• These bills would only affect handguns -- not hunters' rifles or shotguns. One bill would limit the purchase of handguns only -- not hunting weapons -- to one per month per adult.
As the Post-Gazette noted recently, that would still be 24 new handguns per year for a married couple. The limit would not affect shotguns or rifles used to hunt deer and other animals -- just handguns, which are used to hunt humans.
The goal of one-handgun-a-month is to shut off "straw" purchases made by people with clean backgrounds who give or sell these weapons to drug dealers, terrorists and others who can't buy them legally. The limit would not apply to law enforcement agencies, licensed dealers or people whose handguns are lost or stolen. Instead, it would allow us to knock out the illegal competitors of legitimate gun dealers.
• Right now, you have to report a stolen car, but not a stolen handgun. One of the bills recently voted down in committee would correct this bizarre law and require reporting of lost or stolen handguns within 24 hours. This would be a tool prosecutors could use to lock up straw purchasers, and it would help police to track and catch criminals who steal handguns from law-abiding owners.
As the governor noted, the Pennsylvania Association of Chiefs of Police and the Pennsylvania District Attorneys Association support requiring the reporting of lost and stolen firearms.
• Your community can vote to go "dry" on liquor licenses, but you and your neighbors have no local control over deadly handguns. The governor and I support a bill to enable local communities to enact their own limited restrictions on the flow, distribution and use of handguns, but only with local voter approval. This would allow cities like Pittsburgh to exercise local control against handgun violence -- without affecting people in rural communities.
Pennsylvania has already been doing more to enforce current laws, but police and prosecutors want and need these limited additional tools to keep us safe. As the governor testified, "Our law enforcement and our prosecutors are enforcing the laws on the books. They are aggressive, and their efforts have resulted in 16,000 additional criminals behind bars in the last decade ... The statistics indicate we have not slowed the problem of gun violence -- it's only increasing."
Most Pennsylvanians support common-sense handgun laws. Perhaps some opponents are so vocal because they are in the minority. A statewide poll of likely voters taken in February and March showed 71 percent support for a one-handgun-a-month limit -- including 61 percent support among gun owners -- and 81 percent support for requiring the reporting of lost or stolen handguns.
The governor, a former prosecutor, and I believe that none of these bills would affect the state or federal constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens. The polls show most Pennsylvanians appear to agree.
We already have two little-noticed victories to build on from the past two years, victories that show we can enact common-sense laws without affecting law-abiding gun owners. In both cases, legislators from both parties and organizations with widely differing views came together to improve the commonwealth's gun laws.
In 2005, the General Assembly passed a law that keeps weapons out of the hands of most people who are subject to protection-from-abuse orders. And earlier this year, we passed a law that requires police to trace the source of firearms illegally possessed by anyone under 21. That allows police to seek out and shut off those sources, such as theft or straw purchases.
Both of these laws focus on illegal and dangerous conduct, not law-abiding gun owners. Like the new bills, they focus on preventing murders, rather than having to mourn more victims and punish their killers after the fact. Now we need to make more common-sense changes to our handgun laws and save more lives.
First published on December 19, 2007 at 12:00 am
Editor:
There are two groups involved in the Gun Control fight. One is The Pro Gun Lobby. While I’m Pro Gun/ Pro Gun Rights, I speak only for myself, as a private citizen. The Anti Gun Lobby, which Mr. Frankel, obviously supports, is the other. What must be remembered is the often stated, ultimate goal of The Anti Gun Lobby, which from their own mouths are The Ultimate and Total Proscription of Firearms. The law abiding individual would be totally disarmed, Rep. Frankel's claims notwithstanding. I could stop here, however some additional points seem worthy of mention. Curiously Rep. Frankel overlooks them.
1. Firearms are both sensitive and valuable items. I suspect that the average law abiding gun owner, faced with the loss or theft thereof would, without legislative encouragement, report same to the police, especially since their purchase or acquisition might already be a matter of record, legislation barring establishment of a Gun Registry notwithstanding.
2. Straw Purchases, so often mentioned, are already a violation of existing federal law. There is also a long existing requirement in federal law for the reporting of multiple handgun sales/purchases. As memory serves, the purchase of 2 handguns within 1 week activates the reporting requirement of such sales, in writing, to Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE).
3. While the law abiding obey the law, criminals don’t. The enactment of laws that impact adversely on the law abiding serve only to amuse criminals. Provision of amusement for criminals proves quite costly to the law abiding.
The aim is to stop killers, not hunters. So states the headline of Rep. Frankel's piece. How come it turns out that the above mentioned "aim" is so poorly directed?
