search
top

Gun Owner Votes Count

I get so damn sick of the message that individual votes don’t matter. Last election, we had a local state house race that was decided by around 100 votes. That’s so close that it’s painful. Well, this year, we have an even more painful vote – and that’s even with the numbers working in favor of the pro-gun candidate and against the anti-rights guy.

For those who don’t follow Pennsylvania politics closely, we had this legislator named Levdansky. He was the American Hunters & Shooters Association of lawmakers. He proclaims to be a sportsman, but he actively sought to screw all gun owners and even ruin everything for hunters in Pennsylvania by pushing HSUS-dream type bills. He cozied up to anti-rights groups and CeaseFire PA made his attempt to reclaim the office he lost in 2010 their priority House race this year.

Meanwhile, the current incumbent, Rep. Rick Saccone, actually supports Second Amendment and hunting rights.

This year, they are in a rematch. I say are and not were because the race is still to be determined. For a while, Levdansky was up by a few votes, but a more thorough count of all of the ballots in every precinct now puts Saccone up by 36 votes. Three dozen voters.

Because it’s such a close call, it’s going to hearings by the election board which is 2-1 Democratic control. The hearing isn’t until Friday, and the final count isn’t expected until next week, according to various news outlets.

If you happen to know any gun owners who didn’t vote in that race, you might want to give them a piece of your mind. Every vote will matter, and this razor thin margin makes it too close for comfort for any gun owner in the state.

8 Responses to “Gun Owner Votes Count”

  1. Andy B. says:

    First, no argument at all with your “one vote can count” argument.

    However, regarding “the current incumbent, Rep. Rick Saccone, actually supports Second Amendment and hunting rights…”, how do we actually know that? I guess he said so? If so, what has he done about it?

    That is a sincere question. I don’t know what firearms legislation he has introduced or co-sponsored. But, I do know he introduced the “2012 Year of the Bible” resolution, of questionable constitutionality, and, still admitting I know little else about him, that suggests he may have supported some other positions that outweighed his pro-gun standing with many people, if his pro-gun standing was based on nothing more than the rhetoric that is so easily mastered from the Social Conservative Candidates Handbook.

    • Andy B. says:

      I thought I should clarify my point in the above.

      The “Year of the Bible” resolution was challenged in court, but the judge dismissed the suit, while making the point that he did not in any way endorse the resolution. In the decision he stated,

      “At worst, (the Bible resolution) is premeditated pandering designed to provide a re-election sound-bite for use by members of the General Assembly.”

      My point was that people who will pander to one issue will pander to another; but the degree of their sincerity may be judged by which they choose to pander to first, and with the greatest energy.

  2. Bryan S. says:

    Full disclosure. I work with Rick Saccone as his website manager and a campaign volunteer. He is my representative and friend.

    How do we know he is pro second amendment? He was a sponsor on castle Doctrine, and the primary sponsor of the two tier constitutional carry bill. He actively fights for us in Harrisburg, and has been working on other things, like getting preemption strengthened, adding disparity of force to the castle Doctrine, and ridding us of the redundant and buggy PICS system.

    http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/billinfo/billinfo.cfm?syear=2011&sind=0&body=H&type=B&BN=2176

    Also, as of last night, the votes are in, and he won by about 113.

    Personally, I couldnt care less about a non binding resolution about the bible or pop-tarts, it isnt really costing us money or forcing either down our throats. Its not my thing, but I dont begrudge the man for what amounts to a small effort, considering all the other work he has done in a short time to help with taxes, spending and basic rights.

    • Bryan S. says:

      Might I add Rick was A rated by the NRA, Levdansky was rated F.

      Levdansky also told me to my face, multiple times, that Castle Doctrine was all about shooting people indiscriminately when they come on your property. He was literally thrown out of a local sportsman club for lying to the group about his voting record.

      you can ask Kim Stolfer the many things about Levdansky any time, or any of the FOAC BOD. He has been a thorn in the side of rights for a long time.

    • Andy B. says:

      “Personally, I couldnt care less about a non binding resolution about the bible. . .”

      I could, if its premise is anti-constitutional. It suggests loyalty to a personal agenda and preference — or pandering — rather than loyalty to the state and federal constitutions.

      But, congratulations to him, and my thanks for his support of preemption strengthening and elimination of PICS. If I was in his district I probably would have voted for him on the strength of those issues alone.

      • Bryan S. says:

        You have read the PA Constitution, right? You do understand that this was not an establishment of a state religion, and its no more binding than Black history month (does that proclaim you to be of a different race?).

        http://sites.state.pa.us/PA_Constitution.html

        “WE, the people of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, and humbly invoking His guidance, do ordain and establish this Constitution. ”

        Like I said.. not my gig, but I cant see how it is unconstitutional. I do see the personal agenda that many would like to have their religious / world view enforced as law.

        • Andy B. says:

          This isn’t really the forum for this, but when it comes to issues of the constitutions, I can’t resist:

          Article I Section 3 of the Pennsylvania constitution says:

          Religious Freedom

          Section 3.

          “All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences; no man can of right be compelled to attend, erect or support any place of worship or to maintain any ministry against his consent; no human authority can, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience, and no preference shall ever be given by law to any religious establishments or modes of worship.” (Emphasis added).

          The “Year of the Bible” resolution says, among other things citing the Judeo-Christian bible,

          “renewing our knowledge of and faith in God through holy scripture can strengthen us as a nation and a people” and declares “our national need to study and apply the teachings of the holy scriptures.”

          So, it very much violates the highlighted provision above, in that it endorses (“gives preference”) to both a religious establishment and a mode of worship. It does not acknowledge the legitimacy of any sacred text other than the bible, and even if it did, it would thereby deny the legitimacy and equality before the law of having no spiritual belief system at all. And, being the action of a legislature, it very much provides its endorsement in the capacity of “law,” even if it doesn’t direct any specific actions.

          • Bryan S. says:

            You are aware that there are multiple bibles, and multiple meanings of God…. I saw nothing stating that you must follow or give preference to the King James version of the chrisian bible. I see no more reference than the PA constitution already shows.

            Me thinks you protest too damn much. I look at it on the bottom line this way. They were paid to be there anyhow. And it didnt cost us anything more than them voting on it. No new tax or regulation came about, and normal business as usual went on behind the scenes.

            Same people got all up in arms over his religious history tour where he took constituents around the capitol complex showing them the inscriptions and artifacts housed by our Commonwealth that apply to his and their faith (or just of interest to history buffs). No harm, in fact, it was an educational moment for many.

            I think the anti-theists most times are worse than the pushers of the various theologies. At least most modern religions wont beat you about the head with the law books for mentioning another.

top