Dave Hardy points out and article that talks about how most prosecutions involving supressors are for simple possession, and not associated with any particular crime.
Obama distanced himself from his record on guns by claiming that his staff had answered questions where he called for banning handguns and semi-automatic firearms. It turns out he was lying:
Late last year, in response to a Politico story about Obama’s answers to the original questionnaire, his aides said he “never saw or approved” the questionnaire.
They asserted the responses were filled out by a campaign aide who “unintentionally mischaracterize[d] his position.”
But a Politico examination determined that Obama was actually interviewed about the issues on the questionnaire by the liberal Chicago nonprofit group that issued it. And it found that Obama — the day after sitting for the interview — filed an amended version of the questionnaire, which appears to contain Obama’s own handwritten notes added to one answer.
I’m sorry, did I say he lied? Pretty clearly he just misspoke. Yeah. That’s the ticket.
According to today’s session report for the Pennsylvania General Assembly, Representative Levdansky has withdrawn one amendment, A06178, from consideration. Should be noted that this is not the “Lost and Stolen” amendment, but one relating to the original bill, that has to do with altered obliterated serial numbers. Doesn’t say anything about whether “Lost and Stolen” was considered today, though it was supposed to be on the agenda. I’ll let folks know when I know more.
What happened can be described in this AP article. My information was incorrect:
Rep. Bryan Cutler, R-Lancaster, withdrew from the House floor a pending constitutional challenge to legislation that would require owners to report within 72 hours when they realize a handgun has been lost or stolen. Cutler said he would withdraw the constitutional question because of House scheduling needs, but intended to renew it whenever the gun measure comes back before the chamber, perhaps as early as Tuesday.
Sorry folks, I try to be more reliable, but it was hard to tell from the state’s web site exactly what was going on.
UPDATE: The vote on all this is apparently going to be on Wednesday. It’s looking good, but we need to keep the pressure on.
One week from today is April 7th, which is when gun owners from across Pennsylvania will be going to Harrisburg to lobby our elected officials so that we may defeat the gun control measures before the legislature, and promote our own bills.
I will be attending myself, and hope you can come too.
The Philadelphia Inquirer are such renowned experts on firearms and legal theory, and they believe this “Lost and Stolen” thing is a no brainer.
Come on gang, this isn’t much to ask. The concept is simple and should be noncontroversial: If you own a handgun that’s lost or stolen, you’re required to report it.
Modest? You bet. This proposal – which brought 10 busloads of Philadelphians to the capital the other week with CeaseFirePA – would help stem the sale of illegal handguns, while not infringing upon anyone’s rights.
As reported in The Inquirer last week, Pennsylvania’s lax gun laws permit traffickers to supply hundreds of weapons each year to the state’s meanest streets, as well as those in New Jersey and other neighboring states.
As I’ve stated several times, the problem with this bill is that it’s meant to reduce the state’s burden when it is unable to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person has engaged in a straw purchase. When it’s difficult for the state to meet its burden, it is not, and should not be an acceptable course of action to lower that burden. That will result in innocent people going to jail, and our system is supposed to protect against that, not encourage it.
If this law passes, there will be people who are victims of thefts, who are unaware of the law, and who have not engaged in any straw purchasing, who will end up being charged under this when they claim their firearms were stolen, after those firearms are later recovered on the streets. The reason the suburban politicians are all behind this is because upper middle class suburanites all have insurance companies and police departments that are concerned about property crimes. They won’t think twice about reporting stolen or missing firearms. It’s the poorer citizen, both rural and urban, who are going to end up being victims twice. The first time when they had their property stolen, and the second time when they end up charged becuase they didn’t know they had to report it to police. That is not justice. That is a travesty, and in a society that proports to care about the rights of the accussed, should not be acceptable practice.
Straw purchasing is already a serious crime, and the state should be held to its burden of proof. That will mean that sometimes the guilty go free, but that’s generally something we’ve accepted as the cost of living in a free society. This is a dangerous road the Philadelphia politicians are wanting to go down, and I’m disappointed and outraged that a lot of suburban politicians are willing to go along with this because their constitutents have the money to stay out of trouble.
We’re running a very real risk of getting stuck with the Lost and Stolen gun provision, which will make crime victims criminally liable for having guns go missing or get stolen that they failed to notify authorities about. Nine suburban GOP state reps are getting on board with this:
Nine Philadelphia-area Republicans signaled last week they would break ranks with their caucus today and support handgun-control legislation when the state House of Representatives resumes debate on a controversial proposal.
The measure, which would require reporting handguns that are lost or stolen, has been vigorously pushed by Democrats in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh as a “common sense” restriction that would reduce gun violence.
Through a legislative maneuver this month, gun-control proponents attached the proposal as an amendment to a separate weapons bill, setting up a possible historic full House vote on a substantive gun-control bill.
They couldn’t get this through committee, so they decided to go the route of adding to a house bill that’s already on the floor. Here’s what some of our legislators have to say about it:
“I don’t know if it will get any illegal guns off the streets,” Perzel said. “I don’t believe it will have any effect.”
Rep. John Taylor (R., Phila.) said he, too, was a “yes” vote, but he said he was concerned about the potential consequences for law-abiding citizens who fail to report their weapons and who could face criminal charges.
“There is enough sentiment out there that this will really impact regular Joes and that the crackhead going to make straw purchases isn’t going to be affected in the least.”
But, Taylor added, “We have a big enough problem in Philly that I’ll try anything.”
They’ll try anything, even if it means we have to throw “everyday Joe’s” in prison, or subject them to steep fines. Yeah, that’s the kind of government I want to live under, “We have to do something, even if it’s the wrong thing!” Write your reps and tell them to oppose this crap, especially if any of them are features in this article. Write your senators too. Even if this nonsense passes the house, there’s a chance of defeating it in the Senate, which is more friendly than the Democrat controlled house.
That pilots should be allowed to have firearms in the cockpit of the planes they capatain shouldn’t even be controversial, but in addition to our federal government not being able to get their act together in this regard by applying dangerous and stupid regulation on the act, we have pants shitters like this:
Not everyone is comfortable with pilots wearing guns. Kate Hanni, executive director for the Coalition for an Airline Passenger Bill of Rights, said she opposes having a gun in the cockpit. If there must be one, she said, it shouldn’t be on the pilot’s body during flight, but rather within reach in case of a threat.
“The pilots have so much to focus on to keep the plane in the air,” she said.
Maybe I’ve completely lost my mind here, but I’m pretty sure that shooting terrorists attempting to hijack a plane is directly related to keep their plane in the air. If you’re going to disarm ordinary people for the duration of the flight, I feel a lot better knowing my flight crew is packing.
Bitter notes that the anti-hunting forces, namely PETA and HSUS are getting on board with very similar messaging, which likely means they are learning from each other. It’s encouraging that there are more women getting into hunting, but HSUS and PETA are correct that numbers overall are dwindling. It’s very important to the shooting sports to maintain hunting as part of them, which is why groups like PETA and HSUS need to be considered no better than groups like VPC and Brady campaign. We have to adopt the NATO doctrine; an attack on one is an attack on all.
It’s important to let hunters know about these groups and what they are doing, and get them involved in preserving their sport. We also need to let dirty hippy hikers and birdwatchers know that hunters are the ones paying for the habitat preservation they so freely enjoy.
Dave Hardy’s documentary is going to be shown at the Backlot Film Festival in Culver City, California. It will be this Saturday at 10AM, and tickets are only five dollars. Dave is asking folks in the area if they wouldn’t mind showing up, because the more people that show up, the more chance there is of media coverage.
Southern California is a little far from my neck of the woods to make the trip, but I hope folks in California will be able to make it.