A few weeks ago, in regards to Harrisburg’s recently passed Lost and Stolen ordinance, Linda Thompson, Harrisburg Council president stated to our favorite Inquirer columnist, Monica Yant Kinney:
Thompson doesn’t believe a lost-and-stolen law will halt gun trafficking, but it’s a worthy first step.
On Monday, responding to an NRA lawsuit against Harrisburg’s ordinance, she stated:
“I’m not threatened by the NRA,” said City Council President Linda Thompson. “I want the NRA to know I support our law-abiding gun owners, but they’ve got to get off the special interest state of mind. This is about human interest.”
How, in that instance, is the Lost and Stolen law not a “special interest?” She freely admits it will not stop illegal gun trafficking. So who does she presume it will affect? If you guessed the law abiding, you would be correct. Who is behind this rash of ordinances breaking out all over the Commonwealth? If you guessed CeaseFire PA, you would be correct. Does CeaseFire PA escape “special interest” status, or are the a “human interest?”
You see, it’s already a crime to transfer a handgun in this Commonwealth without processing through an FFL or the police. But we’re told now that even lowering the state’s burden down to that isn’t good enough. Now we want to be able to throw people in jail because the state thinks (but can’t prove) they are liars, when they inform the police they had a gun stolen. And opposing that, according to Councilwoman Thompson is a “special interest,” rather than a “human interest.” Forgive me if I don’t get the distinction.
Isn’t private transfer legal in PA? Thought it was for some reason.
Of long guns, yes. Of handguns, no. Due to the way Pennsylvania defines long guns, SBRs and SBSs are subject to the law as handguns are, in addition to the NFA requirement.
I believe that when leftist politicians and political partisans make up new words and phrases to promote their positions it’s called “Newspeak”. Gun control is not “Human Interest” its “State Interest”.