Pennsylvania Assault Weapons Bill

Status
Not open for further replies.
paco
Thanks for the info. I just e-mailed my senator (for what it's worth - Leanna Washington :barf: ) I hope every Pennsy person on THR takes the time to contact their Senator. I'm going to print out the information you posted and take it to where I shoot and see if they'll display it so all shooters can get involved.
 
Some statistical ammunition:

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_20.html

According to the FBI, in 2005, there were 734 murders recorded in Pennsylvania. All styles of rifles COMBINED accounted for only 15 (2.0%), compared to 88 murdered with knives and 21 murdered using fists and feet.

Rifles of any type are NOT a crime problem in Pennsylvania and never have been.
 
Contacted my state senator (Don White). You'd think the politicos here would have something better to do than write stuff like SB 48, but I guess not.
 
When I called my senators office, Gerald LaValle, this was the first they had heard of it. When the secratary asked if I was for or against,you literally could hear her tone change with my answer. And this is in a fairly rural area where the schools close on the first day of buck season!:mad:
 
Folks, e-mail is easier to send and it is also easier to dismiss. To better get their attention, either write a letter or call.
 
I Emailed my Senator Sturla and he wrote back stating that if Pres Bush and the US Congress had not let the AWB sunset He would not have to support this bill, As if GW had anything to do with the sunset of the AWB.
I am in the process of writing him back.
 
My response from Sen. Jane Orie.

"I strongly oppose as well!!! I SUPPORT 2ND AMENDMENT 100%!!!!"
 
My email to Sen. Jeffrey E. Piccola (R, Harrisburg)

I'm sure it's not perfect (though I hope no factual errors in this one), but it's too late for me to change the first round, having sent the email ;)

Any suggested changes, though, I might integrate into the paper version I intend to send out tomorrow.

timothy

------------- email follows ---------------------

Senator Piccola:

I am a voter in your district, writing to note my opposition to Senate Bill 48 of the current session and to provide some reasons you should oppose it in the Senate; I am sending this email in advance of a similar letter by post. Bill 48 is intrusive and unnecessary, playing only to cultivated fears rather than logic; in the interest of preserving Pennsylvanian's freedom you should vote against the bill, and stoutly declare your justification for doing so.

Bill 48, judging by its title, is concerned with banning "assault weapons" in Pennsylvania; however, the definition offered for "assault weapon" within the bill make it clear that the bill in reality targets instead rifles with useful ergonomic features as well as features on various guns that are either sheerly cosmetic or already heavily regulated. It certainly does not cover weapons of any sort with the most important distinguishing characteristic of an actual assault rifle, which is the ability to fire in fully-automatic mode. (That is, when multiple shots can be triggered by a single continuous trigger squeeze. All such guns are already under strict regulation from the BATFE, and can be purchased by ordinary citizens only after a thorough background check and after paying some very expensive fees.)

The definition of "assault weapon" offered in this bill, in fact, would prohibit the sale (and attack the privacy rights of many current owners) of many ordinary rifles, by banning the sale or addition of useful ergonomic and safety features. Many shooters prefer pistol grips or thumbhole stocks on their rifles because they offer a steadier, more secure, more flexible hold on the gun, and some probably find them simply aesthetically pleasing, or a good match for experience gained in the U.S. armed forces; whatever the reason for having them, pistol grips and thumbhole stocks have nothing to do with guns being put to nefarious use. Similarly, "barrel shroud" as defined in the bill describes a functional and aesthetic component of many current rifles (even the bill's description says that a barrel shroud can prevent burned hands). Why would the government of Pennsylvania be interested in taking away from gun owners a component which prevents burning their hands? The simple answer is probably that the bill's sponsors know that modern rifles made with synthetic materials appear less homey and friendly than do "traditional" looking hunting rifles, and are easier to villify for just such superficial reasons.

Note, too, that Bill 48 also defines handguns with stocks as assault weapons. While the definition again ignores historical, conventional use of the term "assault weapon," more significantly it addresses only weapons which are already highly regulated for new purchasers, and which are completely divorced from any actual recent assaults in this or any other part of the country. (Besides which, because stocked handguns are harder to conceal and to bring to bear, I'd prefer that anyone who'd put guns to nefarious use be required, rather than prohibited, to have a stock on his handgun. Unfortunately, most criminals probably don't observe gun laws in the first place.)

Without any supporting justifications, this bill would even ban shotguns which can accept external magazines.

Evidence of just how misguided this bill is may be found in the actual crime statistics for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (which are typical of national figures); of the murders in the Commonwealth in 2005 -- the most recent year for which I could find statistics from the FBI -- only two percent of them were committed using rifles in the first place; no evidence is offered in the preamble or text of Bill 48 (because there is none) that what those rifles looked like had anything to do with their use in a crime.

(See http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_20.html)

The worst part of the so-called "assault weapon" aspect of this bill is that it would mean that tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of Pennsylvanians would be forced to continually ask for permission (in the form of annual permits) to keep the guns which they have legally acquired and which no evidence suggests are likely to be used criminally, or be subject to felony charges.

Finally, though the possession of a magazine holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition, or possession of a gun capable of firing from such a magazine, has passing little to do with the purpose stated in the title of the bill, the inclusion of a provision outlawing those things if possessed at the same time under the umbrella of "assault weapons" shows the true intent of the bill's drafters -- which is as much citizen disarmament as they think they can get away with. This part of the bill would illegalize the common, responsible practice of Pennsylvania's many concealed-weapons permit holders of carrying their pistols loaded with the maximum capacity of their guns' magazines. Many common autopistols carried for this purpose have ammunition capacity greater than 10; why would the legislature want to rob citizens of the right to vigorous self-defense?

Please vote No on this misguided bill, which supports neither logic nor liberty.

Sincerely,

[me]
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top