search
top

Bill to Defy Federal Gun Control Introduced in Pennsylvania

I’m glad Pennsylvania is joining the list of states poised to defy any new draconian federal gun control. You can see the bill here. I absolutely support this bill moving forward in the event we actually get some horrid law out of Washington, but I would caution until it looks like we’re going to get something out of Washington, it’s probably best if we keep this one on the back burner. The message has been sent, but we need to be prepared to push this to the hilt if something passes in D.C.

13 Responses to “Bill to Defy Federal Gun Control Introduced in Pennsylvania”

  1. Bitter says:

    I haven’t really promoted this, not because I’m against it, but because we’ll only need it if we’ve already lost. I’d rather not lose.

    • Pyrotek85 says:

      Should we hold off on contacting state officials then or should we let them know we like the idea?

      • Sebastian says:

        I’d stay focused on gun control ATM. This is something to push if it looks like we’re going to lose.

        • HSR47 says:

          But that’s precisely the point: Enacting measures like this leaves our federal legislators with absolutely no doubt about our intentions regarding future federal anti-gunowner legislation.

          In short, it lets them know with certainty that we will not stand for it, we will not submit to it, and that even if they were to pass it, enforcement would be a non-starter. Thus, why should they waste political capital on such divisive measures?

  2. Patrick H says:

    Heard this announced at the Rally last Wednesday. First time I read the bill, and it requires the AG to defend a PA resident. That’s awesome.

    • HSR47 says:

      Although that brings up an interesting point: Should HB357 pass, would the AG be committing a crime if she refused to comply with the law?

  3. Andy B. says:

    Did Metcalfe draft the bill, or has ALEC already prepackaged something like it?

  4. HappyWarrior6 says:

    This bill is necessary. However, I would hope that the end result is to pass something similar to Montana. There’s no reason that it shouldn’t cover banned items under NFA ’34 either. Attracting arms manufacturers to PA would be another serious stop to end this madness for good. Manufacturing means jobs and I personally would have no problem paying more for good quaity merch with a “Made in PA” stamp.

    • HSR47 says:

      So far pretty much the only fun manufacturer I’m aware of in PA is Cabot. No way in hell am I paying 5,000 or more for a tarted up 1911.

    • Harold says:

      Attracting arms manufacturers to PA

      Unless PA’s a “least worst state” when all things are considered for a particular company, I can’t imagine why any gun manufacturer would pull up stakes and move to a Blue State where gun grabbing legislation is frequently having to be fought hard, where the largest city is viciously anti-gun, and the state is looking like it likely to go more and more anti-gun.

  5. Lucky Forward says:

    I think we should push the Metcalfe bill forward: If we got it passed, or close, it would put pressure on Toomey and Casey, and the Congresscritters, to avoid federal legislation contrary to home-state momentum.

    The more people in D.C. that feel the pressure, the better chance we have to turn this latest gun-grab into the Leftists’ Gettysburg.

    Also, if we do suffer a loss in D.C., some PA legislators could feel that they should hop on the grabber bandwagon.

    So write and call your reps today!

    • Sebastian says:

      I don’t think it will put any such pressure on Toomey and Casey. They aren’t elected by the legislature, thanks to the 17th Amendment. I think to turn this into the Gun Grabber’s Gettysburg, we first have to push them back.

      I think it’s best kept on the back burner for now. Like it or not, we’re on the defensive, and there aren’t enough of us to start multi-front wars.

    • Andy B. says:

      The positive side of this is that if legislation like this passes, it certainly “makes a statement” – FWIW.

      The negative side is, that if it passes, the extent that it can be enforced is, state personnel declining to enforce federal law. But if any attempts are made to make arrests of federal officials, there will be a federal injunction in about five minutes, and that will be that until it is finally overturned by federal courts.

      That will be true in the first state that passes it and then attempts in invoke it.

      It would seem to me if an attempt to challenge federal authority in this way was thought to be viable, that one of the states that has passed a medical marijuana law would have done something similar. But since no one with that issue seems to have thought of it, I smell a rat and a bit of hollow posturing on our side.

      Time will tell.

      I think a lot of legislators signing on to this know it’s all a charade, albeit one that will become useful come the 2014 campaign season; “We tried to help you boys, we really did, too bad we couldn’t manage to do a damn thing for you.” ALEC seems to be real good at orchestrating Republican campaign charades that don’t accomplish a whole lot when subjected to close inspection.

top