search
top

Media Mislabeling Preemption Enforcement

I’m tired of seeing the media characterize the new preemption bill thusly:

The state House of Representatives is scheduled to vote today on a bill that would outlaw ordinances in 30 municipalities – including Reading – that require gun owners to report lost or stolen firearms within 24 hours of discovering them missing.

This bill would not outlaw those ordinances. Those ordinances are already outlawed under state law. All this would do is to put the cost of defending those laws on the municipalities that pass them in violation of state law, and give plaintiffs who challenge them attorneys fees and damages. All this bill does is place the burden where it belongs: on towns which violate state law by passing ordinances that relate to gun regulation.

4 Responses to “Media Mislabeling Preemption Enforcement”

  1. LC Scotty says:

    The law has been broken. He who breaks the law, goes back to the house of pain.

  2. David says:

    This is from the reading eagle. They can’t even get a quote right when they’re given a written press release. They are some of the most incompetent so called journalists. This is also the same paper who calls bloggers, “idiots with laptops”, then they proceeded to ramble about why old media was the real media and the future of the media.

  3. mobo says:

    It’s pretty clear to me that this is a deliberate attempt to deceive, rather than an honest misunderstanding of what this bill would accomplish.

    I would add that a large portion of gun nuts wouldn’t have a problem with a lost/stolen reporting requirement (statewide), as long as the burden of proof falls on the prosecutor to prove that the defendant *knowingly* failed to report a firearm stolen. No “or should have known” clauses! I would gladly trade that for a greatly reduced latitude in determining “character and reputation”.

  4. Adam says:

    Ugh, just saw this in the paper this morning. Of course the wonderful Mayor Gray of Lancaster is not happy about it. I’m sure he wants to urinate all over this just like he did to the original state preemption clause.

top