2007 – Page 28 – Shall Not Be Questioned

The Bastard Child of the Bill of Rights

I was mentioning the other day that we need to get ready for the meaningless individual rights arguments to start popping up. Here they come in Philly.

As a member of the House Judiciary Committee I received a lot of e-mails urging me to vote against the gun-control bills we considered last week. Many of these e-mails argued, in some form, that the governor’s proposals violated the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. The writers seemed to feel that the Second Amendment prohibits any restrictions on gun ownership. However, that is simply not how the amendment works.

First off: good job Pennsylvania Gun Owners! He knows we’re watching. But while I agree the second amendment isn’t absolute, I worry when a politician starts down this road.

Last week we voted down two bills dealing with guns. The first would have required people to report the loss or theft of a gun they owned. The second would have limited to one a month the number of guns a person could purchase.

People can argue about the merits of these bills from a policy perspective, but there is clearly no constitutional impediment to either bill. The two rights spelled out in the Second Amendment do not bestow a constitutional “right” not to report a lost or stolen gun. Nothing in the wording of the amendment even arguably says that.

Really? So if I passed a law limiting the amount of ink people could buy with an aim to combat libel, that would be constitutionally permissible under the first amendment? Would limiting someone to a certain number of e-mails a month, with an aim to combat spam, be respectful of our right to free speech and free association?

All we insist on is that the second amendment be treated as seriously as other rights protected by the constitution. Daylin Leach is arguing for something less than “strict scrutiny”, because applied to your right to free speech, the laws I described above would be tossed.

Hat tip to Melody Zullinger, of PFSC for the heads up.

UPDATE: I just e-mailed Representative Leach.Â We’ll see if he responds.Â I would encourage everyone to do so as well, because it’s important that he hear from gun owners.Â Be nice, be factual, and stick to the issues.

Shotgun Hunting

This study suggests that hunting with a shotgun isn’t really any safer than hunting with a rifle.Â I’m not really surprised.Â Fast moving rounds will tend to fragment more if they hit something, which would mean the pieces have less momentum, and won’t travel as far.

We’re Still Swingin’

This article suggests Pennsylvania will yet again be a battleground state in 2008, because neither party can afford to ignore it.Â The big problem Republicans are going to have with Pennsylvania in 2008 is that suburban Republican voters do not like George W. Bush’s brand of conservatism, and I have a feeling a lot of rural Republicans in our state aren’t too happy with him either.Â Absent some big issue that will mobilize Republican voters, I don’t see Pennsylvania going red in 2008, but it could happen, and I agree that the possibility will keep the candidates fighting over our state.

Hunting With Black Rifles

Good article from an outdoor writer for the Minneapolis Star-Tribune on the use of AR-15s in hunting.Â With a proper hunting legal magazine, there’s no reason I couldn’t hunt deer with my 6.8 SPC AR-15.Â It’s a comfortable rifle to carry, and a comfortable rifle to shoot.Â Hunting with a semi-auto isn’t legal in Pennsylvania, but in most other states, it’s fine.

Automotive Engineers

I got tied up in this mess for more than two hours yesterday morning.Â I saw the accident scene.Â I have to say, the fact that there were only a few injuries from such a horrific looking scene is a testament to what automotive engineers have accomplished in terms of vehicle safety.Â Â The cars on the road today are far safer than they’ve ever been, and a lot of people owe their lives to that.

How to Get Your LTCF Revoked

A guy gets pulled over for doing 85 in a 55, charged with reckless driving.Â A few weeks later, his License to Carry is revoked by the Delaware County Sheriff.Â Reasoning is the old “character and reputation” escape clause.Â Â Is this an abuse of discretion?Â Or a proper exercise of it?

My opinion is, if everything was as claimed, it’s not an appropriate use of that clause.Â But I think this guy might not get his license back.Â The Sheriff will no doubt argue that Reckless Driving is a serious summary offense, and is accompanied by a six months suspension of your license to drive a motor vehicle, and that being convicted of it exhibits a certain poor judgment that makes one a person who’s character makes him unsuitable to carry a firearm.

I think once we’re rid of Fast Eddie, revoking the “character and reputation” clause needs to be a priority.Â Pennsylvania is supposed to be a shall issue state, but we’re not technically.Â Sheriffs retain, and still use, considerable discretion on when to revoke or not issue licenses in Pennsylvania.Â If the guy had a string of non-disqualfiying misdemeanors, I might not complain, but doing 85 in a 55 might technically be reckless driving, but I won’t tell you I’ve never done it.Â It may be an indicator of bad judgment, but if it’s so bad that it should be disqualifying, why did the legislature choose to not include it in the list of disqualifying offenses?

Either way, I end up arguing in that thread about carrying Pennsylvania on a foreign reciprocal license if you’re a PA resident who’s had their LTC revoked.Â Keep reading if you’re interested in that topic.Â Keep in mind I’m no lawyer though, and the only lawyer who responded said he wouldn’t advise it.

Forgive the vulgarity ….

…. but John Timoney can seriously go fuck himself. He apparently doesn’t take his oath to uphold the constitution of either his country or his state seriously at all, and he’s been peddling this stuff since he was busy screwing up Philadelphia’s police department and trying to crap on the constitutional rights of Pennsylvanians by arguing that the Pennsylvania constitution was no obstacle to the city of Philadelphia banning guns.

I’m sick of seeing that turd’s name attached to stories like this. Does anyone out there have a MythTV box? If so, do like Uncle said and get the best parts recorded. Preferably in high def. MythTV will encode in a format that can be more easily manipulated on a PC than a TiVO.

Last time Timoney and his buddies were pushing this nonsense we caught their lies red handed. Let’s do it again for ABC this time.

More On What They Think Of You

I can’t believe I missed this bit linked off the letters to the editor linked here:

What kind of nonsense is this that a person in Philadelphia can purchase even one gun a month? Police officers and innocent people are being murdered and wounded every day in Philadelphia. Why would civilians need to purchase more than one gun?

Damaris Martinez, Philadelphia

Of course, we’re told, when we suggest that “If they can ration to one a month, what’s to stop them from rationing to one a year? Or just one per person per lifetime?”,Â “That’s crazy gun nut talk! No one wants to do that.” Bullshit!

Gardiner on “Willful” Violations

Over at Red’s Trading Post, see some testimony by attorney Richard Gardiner from back when Congress was considering reigning in the ATF. You know, if the Democrats want to earn some good ju ju with gun owners, they could take this up again. Democrats are supposed to be for the little guy right? You don’t get much more “mom and pop” than most gun shops.

That demand for perfection is an impossible burden for anyone, including federal firearms licensees, to meet. If ATF continues to enforce the law in the current manner, few licensees will remain in business. Congress should make clear that licensees should only face serious penalties for serious, material violations that could result in sales to prohibited persons or that could impede legitimate investigations.

Apparently it’s a pretty tough standard for the ATF to meet too.

More Bad Laws

HB 1966, introduced a few weeks ago in the Pennsylvania General Assembly, would impose a 1% tax on firearms which will be used for a “Violence Reduction Fund”. The sponsors of the bill are the usual suspects. This one goes through the finance committee, and I’m not aware of the composition of that as far as the gun issue goes. It’s nothing to start worrying seriously about yet, but it does illustrate the mentally of the Philadelphia Politicians. Who is responsible for gun violence in Philadelphia? Certainly not the cretins who roam the streets committing crimes. Nope. It’s you and me, and we should have to pay the piper for purchasing evil guns.