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

Statewide hearings in Pennsylvania

Discussion in 'Legal' started by alan, Mar 19, 2007.

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

    alan Member

    Dec 24, 2002
    sowest pa.
    This afternoon I e-mailed the following to each menber of the House Judiciary Committee. Two were not delivered, as e-mails were not listed and I guessed wrong as to what their e-mails might possibly be. Pennsylvania residents can, if they wish, duplicate what I wrote, though I would suggest some changes in wording. Names and e-mail addresses of committee members are available at state house judiciary committee.

    Sir or Madam, as suits the individual:

    It is my understanding that there are a series of state wide hearings being held on the subject of crime and violence, hearings which will undoubtedly touch on firearms. Re this "touching", please note the following.

    1. The constitution of Pennsylvania states that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be questioned". Part of the existing problem is that this right is being "questioned". Unfortunately, it is only the right of the law abiding that is subject to this questioning, as criminals do not usually obey the law. If they did, they wouldn't be criminals, right?

    2. While the foregoing could be taken to pretty much cover the subject, there are some other aspects to consider, one of them is this One Gun Per Month proposal. Why should there be any concern as to however many guns of whatever type THE LAW ABIDING CITIZEN might own, or how many they might chose to purchase in any period of time? Obviously, given that the firearms owned by the law abiding do not present a problem, there shouldn't be concern, yet in the minds of anti gunners, there is. Seems as if their efforts would be better directed toward combating the antics of criminals, yet they seem to have found a softer target, the law abiding. Why they chose to examine a non-problem is something that escapes my understanding, though reference to soft targets might explain their leanings. By the way, with reference to One Gun Per Month purchase restrictions, states that have such restrictions appear to have higher crime rates than those that do not. Not so long ago, North Carolina repealed it's 30 year old One Gun Per Month purchase restrictions, said restrictions having showed no discernable benefits. Why then should Pennsylvania adopt a scheme that is demonstrably, a failure.

    3..As to existing law, there is an existing mandatory penalties provision in the state code, a section that has been included in the law for some years now. It is my understanding that firearms charges are often dropped, or plea bargained by prosecutors while judges all to often seem to avoid imposing the additional penalty specified where a firearm is used in a crime. Seems that before attacking the rights of the law abiding, that this "loophole", we hear a lot about "loopholes" should be closed, doesn't it?

    4. Lest we forget, there are or will be the perennial proposals for the banning of "assault weapons". Now then, some in the legislature seem to think that there is so serious a problem with this sort of firearm that banning them is appropriate. I do not agree. In any case, those who seek to ban a manufactured product should be able to specifically define exactly that which they would ban. The fact is, than on an ongoing basis, they are either unable or unwilling to so do, which raises question as to ultimate goals mentioned below.

    In conclusion, what we face here, with the antics of The Anti Gun Lobby and it's members both in and out of the legislature and media is the following. The well known and often stated goal of The Anti Gunners is, from their own mouths, THE TOTAL PROSCRIPTION OF FIREARMS. They have so stated many times, and they mean exactly what they say. Given this, with respect to what are often described as "common sense restrictions", "reasonable restrictions" and so forth, their often stated goals must be kept in mind. In case anyone is less than clear as to what the ultimate goals of the anti gunners are, let me paraphrase. They seek to destroy one of the most basic of man's rights, the right to defend oneself, as well as the individuals ability to so do, via the imposition of the fairytale that is "gun control". Do you want to be party to such action? In the last analysis, that is the question that your actions, as a legislator, will answer.

    Respectfully submitted.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page