1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Philly Inquirer Supports 1 Gun a Month Limit

Discussion in 'Legal' started by msb45, Feb 12, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. msb45

    msb45 Member

    Oct 3, 2004
    I saw this and have already responded with a letter. :fire:

    Here is the email address for the editorial desk don't let this go unchallenged. :cuss:


    Text of Editorial

    Editorial | Limiting Handgun Purchases Thaw a frozen divideThe movement is small, but it could be significant.
    In recent weeks, an influential gun-rights advocate in the Pennsylvania Senate said he might be willing to back a version of a bill to limit handgun purchases to one per month, per person. State Sen. Vincent J. Fumo (D., Phila.) said he could support legislation sponsored by Sen. LeAnna M. Washington, also a Philadelphia Democrat, if it is amended in two ways. Fumo wants the limit to apply only to Philadelphia and to expire after five years.
    Gun-control lobbyists would be wise to recognize Fumo's offer as a chance to get something useful done.
    Allowing people to buy handguns as often as they want has led to a system of "straw buyers," who purchase the weapons as fronts for illegal gun traffickers who can't buy directly because they have criminal records.
    Many of the guns used in murders get into the hands of thugs this way. Straw purchases fuel the plague of gun violence from Reading to Camden. The market is regional, so limiting the law to Philly won't work.
    Here's one suggestion for a compromise that would help curb the bloodshed (at least 31 gun homicides in Philly so far this year), while respecting the rights of law-abiding gun purchasers.
    Limiting handgun purchases to once a month would gradually dry up the black market's supply. So why not pass a statewide handgun purchase limit that contains a provision to allow counties to vote to opt out of it? That way, urban counties where gun violence is rampant could defend their residents, while citizens in, say, Snyder or Elk Counties who dislike gun limits could opt out out of the system.
    Curbing straw purchases is sensible policy, but it's been a political non-starter because of the firmly pro-gun stance of many lawmakers from outside this corner of the state. On the other side, many gun-control proponents seem unwilling to look seriously at anything but their ideal proposal. So nothing gets done. Fumo's offer is praiseworthy because it shows movement. It's not enough. But it's significant. Washington should amend her bill to include that opt-out provision. Give Fumo his five-year test run, and require a vote to reauthorize the law. By then, residents outside urban areas will have seen that these smart limits still allow them to buy guns for hobbies or self-defense, while urban residents will have seen how the limits can curb gun violence.
    An opt-out amendment would require legislators to drop a state provision that bars counties or other individual jurisdictions from regulating the ownership or purchasing of guns or ammunition. So be it. Local residents are smart enough to decide whether gun laws are in their public-safety interest.
    It's time each side in this impasse acted as if the other side were operating in good faith. That's the door to compromise; Fumo has opened it a crack.
    Is he serious? The only way to find out is to pursue the opportunity. Maybe the two sides finally can stop talking past each other and do something to save lives.

    My Response:
    was stunned by the above entitled editorial this evening.

    As someone who legally collects firearms I am insulted by the notion that I enable thugs and gun runners by opposing limits on the purchase of multiple handguns in a single transaction or month. Did my multiple purchases lump me into those categories in your mind?

    Do you realize collectors often value sets of pistols, especially those with consecutive serial numbers? Other collectors will be forced to pass up good finds because of a prior purchase in the period regulated. This notion is ridiculous on it's face. And you feel that penalizing me respects my rights. As someone in the editorial department you should access to a dictionary. What part of "shall not be infringed" do you find confusing?

    Since criminals use pre-paid cell phones to do business should they also be registered and have limits on purchase? Criminals use newspapers, perhaps you should only publish once a month. Would that be respectful to you rights? If the 2nd Amendment is up for limits, lets open up the 1st.

    Philadelphia's crime spree has a lot to do with a police administrations whose "Safe Streets" initiatives chase drug dealers from corner to corner with no arrests. When the police commissioner states that "arrests waste time and manpower" he is declaring defeat. That's why you have the situation you do.

    When researching this editorial did you research the origins of these 31 firearms? If they were illegally obtained they can be traced back to the source. What penalties or sanctions stemmed from this? Gun runners can be traced via ATF tracing programs and informants on the street. Limits impact supply and demand only. I'd bet these thugs and drug dealers have much more disposable income to spend on firearms than I do. Based on your characterization of these 31 offenders as "thugs" they have broke multiple laws. Why would this one stop them?

    Crime is about criminals and not their tools. Look at the UK and the increase of knife and sword, yes sword, crime.

    Rather than look at bogus feel good legislation look to programs like "Project Exile". Once again enforcement is the key. Crime is about criminals, unless you deal with that you're on a path to failure. And as you meander down that path you can begin to justify more restrictions on legal owners since you first moves didn't work.

    In the meantime these thugs will wander the streets sowing more death and destruction to the innocents.

    If you see fit to publish this please withhold my name, email, and home address, but not the reason for my request. I'm not doing this to hide my opinions but to keep my collection out of the public eye for security reasons. Good gun owners always look to secure their collections and protect us all. This would be the antithesis of the criminal.


    PS Please cancel my subscription. I support your right to free speech. However I feel no need to financially support you nor anyone else who puts so little value on my rights.
  2. thumper723

    thumper723 Member

    Dec 21, 2005
    Lost somewhere in time!
    Well said.
  3. P95Carry

    P95Carry Moderator Emeritus

    Jan 3, 2003
    South PA, and a bit West of center!
    msb - ''waiting periods'' are little more IMO than a control exercizes which achieve blind zero, with regard to affecting guns in criminal hands.

    It is a joke and always has been. But try telling that to some of the anti's who think that adding more to the 20,000 or so gun laws aleady on the books makes a difference.:rolleyes:

    I hope your letter gets some attention.
  4. beerslurpy

    beerslurpy member

    Nov 8, 2004
    Spring Hill, Florida
    Great letter. Another spear in the side of the beast.
  5. grimjaw

    grimjaw Member

    May 9, 2005
    Well written, and good on you for cancelling financial support. More people should vote with their dollars.

  6. TrybalRage

    TrybalRage Member

    Jan 28, 2005
    Marietta, GA
    Bravo. I have been hearing way too much of this 1 gun a month crap.
  7. geekWithA.45

    geekWithA.45 Moderator Emeritus

    Jan 1, 2003
    SouthEast PA
    I severely and profoundly doubt that any politician coming from Philadelphia with a D next to their name can sustain a position as genuine gun rights advocate.

    In short, it looks like Fumo is folding, which means that either someone's calling in a marker, or got the goods on him.

    I say this because the compromise measures he proposes, (limiting to PHL, and 5 year sunset) are the sorts of moves you pull when a measure has momentum, and needs to be blunted.

    In this case, he's doing it to get some momentum behind the measure, which was soundly denounced in the report of Rendell's "gun crime committee".
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2006
  8. Dain Bramage

    Dain Bramage Member

    Jan 2, 2003
    Arlington, WA
    If only they could make these "straw purchases" illegal!

    And to think, the 31 gun murders in Philly might have been prevented too. Any hardcore banger would seriously reconsider shooting down a fellow citizen in cold blood if he knew hard time awaited him for gunrunning.
  9. ScottS

    ScottS Member

    Apr 22, 2003
    Live Free or Die
    Instead of cancelling your subscription, you should have told them you favor a statewide law to limit the freedom of press, but counties would have the option to "opt out." That way those counties in the western part of the state, where this pesky freedom isn't as much of a problem, could allow it, but we could still stop editorials like this one in urban areas where it's much more dangerous.
  10. progunner1957

    progunner1957 member

    Nov 14, 2004
    A wolf living in Sheeple land
    My right is better than your right

    I wonder how the Enquirer would like it if someone started advocating that newspapers be allowed to publish one newspaper per month? You can bet there would be a holy war over that!

    The Enquirer's outlook can be described as "My right is better than your right."

    As Wayne LaPierre said: "The power to say one is the power to say none."
  11. Glockman17366

    Glockman17366 Member

    Dec 11, 2005
    South Central Pennsylvania
    The lefties from Philadelphia try this every couple years. I went to Harrisburg to testify against one attempt (sponsored by Lisa Cohen of Mountgomery County) a few years back.

    This might be Rep. Washington's mouth saying this, but it's left wing whacko Rendell who's behind it.

    Although there has been numerous attempts to do this, with no succes, that doesn't mean to stop being extremely vocal in your opposition to such foolishness!
  12. Zero_DgZ

    Zero_DgZ Member

    Feb 3, 2006
    I don't get it. I can shoot somebody just as well if I buy one gun this month instead of two.

    Who do they think this is going to stop? The criminals will find as many straw buyers as they want/need. Not sticking with the same guy is probably a good plan, because then there's no pattern. Hello?

    It's like the kids hanging out in front of the 7-11 trying to get people to buy them smokes. They don't care who or how. They take it however they can get.

    The only thing you're doing to me is preventing me from spending (potentially large amounts of) money in your state. 6% tax, right?

  13. Derby FALs

    Derby FALs Member In Memoriam

    Jul 29, 2004
    Louisville, KY
    Project Exile is a sell out also.
  14. Cosmoline

    Cosmoline Member

    Dec 29, 2002
    Los Anchorage
    I support a "One Editorial Per Month" law. That way the writers will really have time to think about what they're saying won't be pressured to fill copy with mildless gibbering.
  15. DukeNukem

    DukeNukem Member

    Nov 25, 2005
    I buy a gun every couple of years or so. If a 1 gun a month law is passed, I might feel obligated to actually buy a gun a month. Wonder if that law may just have the opposite effect of what they intend with it.
  16. Molon Labe

    Molon Labe Member

    Jun 17, 2003
    SW Ohio
  17. MechAg94

    MechAg94 Member

    Apr 17, 2005
    Hell, I am not sure I could buy one gun a month. It would be fun, but I have other bills. I am not in favor of such a requirement. ;)

    One gun per quarter is certainly a go. :)
  18. Standing Wolf

    Standing Wolf Member in memoriam

    Dec 24, 2002
    Idahohoho, the jolliest state
    One of the reasons my tax and investment dollars and I left the People's Republic of California in 2002 to return to the United States was one gun a month.
  19. RON in PA

    RON in PA Member

    Dec 25, 2002
    S.E. PA, USA
    The "one gun a month" plan is a long time favorite of the Dems and has been pushed by the "Inky" for a long time. The politicians in Philly are desperate because of the recent increase in the homicide rate. Nobody has the balls to state the obvious, the people doing the killing seem to want to emulate the lyrics of gangsta music. So again we have a sociological problem that nobody has an easy cure for ( how about stressing education, family and work), lets blame the guns.
  20. crazed_ss

    crazed_ss Member

    Dec 27, 2005
    Sunny San Diego
    CA has the "one gun a month law".. :( I cant buy another handgun until the end of the month cause I just picked up my XD-9.
  21. Crosshair

    Crosshair Member

    Mar 25, 2005
    Grand Forks, North Dakota
    I have the anoying problem of guns following me home. I went to Cabelas and an Enfield revolver followed me home when I left. (I should have never put my C&R on file with them.:rolleyes: ) Now I have to find where the heck I can get some 38 S&W cause now I want to shoot it.:cool: Cutting back to one gun a month might help.:neener:
  22. LAK

    LAK Member

    Jul 28, 2004
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page