It’s not too surprising, being a State Senator in a Philadelphia district, that Tony Williams favors gun control. A shame too, because I think he’s one of the better Dems in the race for Governor in the Democratic primary. He’s airing ads that push the issue:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJDNTykCsT0[/youtube]
These ads certainly aren’t going to hurt him in most of the communities in Philadelphia, and that’s where he can probably expect to draw the most votes from in the primary. But it’s been surprising that all the Democrat candidates have been willing to run on this issue when it’s not really been at the forefront, and is generally understood to hurt Democrats in statewide races. So why do all the Democratic candidates, save Jack Wagner, who is at least sidestepping on the issue of guns, feel they can not only endorse mild gun control measures, but even go so far as to attack preemption, which is a bedrock issue for us?
I’ll call it the Ed Rendell effect. I think our Governor has convinced Dems that the NRA can’t touch them. After all, he was NRA’s public enemy number one, and he beat us both times. He’s even gone on record saying as much. But Ed won the first time by running from his record on the issue, up against a weak and uninspiring GOP candidate in the form of Mike Fisher. He won the second time because the GOP got behind the disastrous candidacy of Lynn Swann. Ed beat the GOP both times. Not a difficult feat in Pennsylvania, when the GOP doesn’t have their game on, which is much of the time. If Ed’s convinced Democrats being in favor of gun control doesn’t matter in this state, they are going to be in for a harsh lesson come November, and for as long as the GOP has a bench that looks halfway decent.
It’s only a bedrock issue for you because you’d get your clocks cleaned in every city over 50,000 in America if you didn’t have your rural state reps alter the rules. I’d argue that in Pennsylvania, preemption is becoming a broader statewide negative for conservatives because Philadelphia is suffering so. Anyway, it’s interesting to pontificate on…
And Second Amendment rights are meaningless if they can be cancelled by any city over 50,000. It’s impossible to comply with a patchwork of regulations like that. Even using guns for hunting and sport is going to become legally risky, even if you concede it would make carrying one unbearably legally risky.
There are very few issues like gun regulations that are done at the local level. Sure, local communities control things like zoning, local taxes, local roads, etc. But even speed limits are generally controlled according to state law.
I don’t believe urban communities get an exception to the Second Amendment, any more than I think rural communities and small towns should get an exception to be able to ban abortion clinics.
Hey Petey, that’s what your buddy Dick Aborn thought when he was running in New York City last year right up to the very moment the polls closed and he got spanked.
Tony Williams “thinking outside the box” indeed.
Peter, you fully know that preemption is the bedrock of substantive individual rights, and incorporation will be the bedrock of 2A preemption. Where your group fails is in grasping the reality that the second amendment protects a substantive, individual right. Sure … what works in Cheyenne may not work in Chicago. But the infringement of substantive individual rights works in neither place. It’s just off the table.
It’s likely I can substitute “fundamental” for “substantive” come June …
But let me add that it’s alright with me if the Bradys continue to deny that the 2A is real, and prohibits governments …