I’m in the car headed to the rally this morning in Harrisburg.Â Obviously not the one driving.Â I can blog at the same time as doing many other things, but driving is not among them.Â Yesterday I noticed a post by a blog I’ve highlighted here previously.Â Capitol Ideas is a well done blog, but that’s not to say that I agree with the author on everything.Â One of them is might possibly be gun rights.Â See, the thing is, Wayne was right in everything he said.Â Most folks don’t realize that these so-called assault weapons are actually less powerful than grandpa’s deer rifle, and almost certainly less lethal than the 12 gauge shotgun that you actually will find in a duck blind.
But it seems controlling guns isn’t enough for some folks, especially politicians in Harrisuburg:
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Tom Caltagirone, D-Berks, said recent events highlight the need for a fix in the law since the protective suits are being used more and more often by criminals.
“What purpose does body armor serve outside of law enforcement? There may be a bill,” Caltigirone said.
But a spokeswoman for the NRA argued that the vests serve a legitimate purpose, with everyone from your local pizza delivery-guy to schoolkids (???) are sporting Kevlar. “Do we take that away from them, or do we have government do its job?” spokeswoman Kim Stolfer asked.
Kim isn’t a spokesman for the NRA, and I’m not sure there are really too many school kids sporting kevlar these days, but there are plenty of professional jobs where it’s a good idea.Â I wouldn’t be a bartender in a rough bar without wearing ballistic protection.Â Definitely wouldn’t be a bouncer, security guard, or even pizza delivery guy, as Kim mentions.Â There are plenty of reasons that ordinary citizens might decide to wear a little ballistic protection.
But aside from that argument, I think there’s a good case to be made that armor falls under the term “arms” and thus possession by the law abiding is constitutionally protected.Â They certainly qualify as being in “common use” since they are worn by people in dangerous professions, and one can hardly consider body armor particularly dangerous.
Plus, and maybe I’m crazy here, I just have a problem with the government saying “I’m sorry, but we have to be sure we can properly shoot you, should it ever become necessary.”Â That doesn’t sit well with me.Â In some ways, I feel like that’s worse than taking my guns away.Â It would be like declawing a cat, vs cutting a foot off so he can’t run so fast.
4 thoughts on “Rallying Against Rendell”
The government shouldn’t be allowed any personal items that a citizen can’t have. This especially goes for items protected under an amendment in the Bill of Rights.
I take it you’ve never seen these then?
Granted, there might not be many kids with them, but you could still use the “but if it saves one child..” canard. ;)
There’s the Kevlar school uniforms in the UK. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/6945814.stm
From what i understand, lots of kids are sporting these:
and that, might not qualify as a “vest” im certain it would qualify as a prohibited item according to any bill that might be passed on the subject.
Ballistic vests have become pretty common items for parents to purchase for their middle school aged kids in Britain, from the news coverage I’m seeing. Not so much for bullets as for knives.
Gun control is working so well there.
Comments are closed.