My Congressman to Gun Owners: See Ya!

Probably because Johnny Doc’s brother Kevin, Justice of the State Supreme Court, along with his partisan allies, illegally and and flagrantly usurped legislative prerogative to make us a Democratic district*, Brian Fitzpatrick, who I’d note is a former FBI agent, the agency that utterly failed those kids in Florida, is jumping on board with shifting the blame to gun owners.

“We have to be willing to stand up and be willing to have the courage and say that if prohibiting the sale of these military-style assault weapons will solve the problem, we need to get on board with it,” he said.

I’m done with the Fitzpatricks. When Mike retired, it was a prime chance to get a new face out there, but the Party decided to pull a switcheroo and hope no one would notice. I’d note that there is a primary challenger. Usually my first question to a primary challenger is “Can they win?” Too many people ask “Does he agree with me?” Or if you’re a Republican, they’ll ask “Is he a True Conservative?” If your candidate can’t win, that doesn’t matter very much now, does it? You have to run people that can win in the district, and with the fresh addition of a bunch of Dems into District Eight One, any Republican will have an uphill climb. The truth is, I have no idea whether Dean Malik can win, and I don’t frankly care. My overriding desire now is to see Fitzpatrick sent packing, even if it means sacrificing that seat to the Dems. I will vote for Dean in the primary. I seem to recall I was favorably impressed by him at a political beauty pageant a local group held a few years back. I will not vote a single more time for Brian Fitzpatrick, or any other Fitzpatrick, for Congress ever again.

Ordinarily, I am very much reluctant to not hold my nose, because the Dem is almost always guaranteed to be worse on guns and other things. But some stench is just too much, and you can’t get much worse than endorsing a ban on semi-automatics (and make no bones about it… read that CNN poll… it polled banning semi-autos categorically). That Fitzpatrick delivered this message to the sycophants at the Chamber of Commerce is just icing on the cake. The idea that Fitzpatrick is going to give a pass to his buddies at the FBI for failing to act, and instead is going to jump on board with punishing me? Fuck no, and fuck off.

* <rant>
Don’t get me started on this. They claimed a power in the state constitution that simply isn’t there. They basically rewrote the PA constitution to their liking unilaterally, then claimed legislative powers to actually rewrite the districts. I’m really hoping Alito delivers on an injunction, because the elections clause of the federal constitution says state legislatures (and recent precedent allows a function of law to assign redistricting to a commission) draw districts, and Kevin Doc and his buddies are not my fucking legislature and no function of law gives it to them. But no one else in this state seems to believe process matters. Hell, no one believes rule of law is important anymore. We’re warring camps and it’s “Ra! Ra! Go team!” Except my team sucks.

20 Responses to “My Congressman to Gun Owners: See Ya!”

  1. Joe says:

    Looking at the ILLEGALLY Court-Redrawn PA Districts, what does the PA Congressional Delegation balance project to be?

    Right now it’s 13-5 GOP-Dem. What do the new ones look like?

    10-8 GOP-Dem? 9-9 tie? Or (GOD I HOPE NOT!!) More Dems than GOP?

    I’d like to remind my fellow bloggers at PAGunBlog that the PA Supreme Court’s decision to rewrite and rigbthe PA Congressional Map was a fix that was in from the start.

    The “National Democratic Redistricting Committee” (which should be called the National Gerrymandering Congressional Districts For Democrats Committee) is being funded by Barack Obama through his splinter-faction, OFA ( Organizing for America) and is being led on in litigation by Obama’s former campaign staff and his Junkyard Dog, ERIC HOLDER.

    These scumbags are suing Swing-GOP and GOP Ststes for “Gerrymandering”, and the lawsuits are being brought before Democrat Judges (especially those appointed by Obama). Their objective is clear: GERRYMANDER Congressional Districts For Democrats.

    However, I will remind everyone that the most GERRYMANDERED States in America are NJ, MD, OR WA, CT, and IL (the biggest one of all).
    The “National Democratic Redistricting Committee” is actually fighting off anti-gerrymandering lawsuits against those listed Blue States………GO FIGURE!

  2. Brad says:

    “…But no one else in this state seems to believe process matters. Hell, no one believes rule of law is important anymore. We’re warring camps and it’s “Ra! Ra! Go team!” Except my team sucks.”

    A nationwide problem. Everyone is guilty of this to a point, but it does seem to be focused most with those who already hold power plus a plurality of the political Left. That’s a recipe for national disaster.

    The last time due process was so badly disrespected our Nation suffered the first Civil War.

    There’s a depressing thought. Will we end up naming the next one Civil War II? Or are we already in a Cold Civil War?

  3. grey says:

    We’re in a Cold Civil War, already.

    It’s not North or South, or between the States. It’s split by political affiliations. If it goes hot, it’s not going to be fought by armies. It will be fought house to house and in the streets.

  4. Ian Argent says:

    How’d he vote on HR.38? It appears that his seat is lost as long as he’s holding it, anyway; so may as well hang for a sheep.

  5. Pennsylvania Observer says:

    I’m just curious. I’ve gone through the Pennsylvania Constitution pretty thoroughly, both reading it visually and searching it electronically for keywords, and an oddity is that while it defines the process for establishing state representative and senatorial districts, and magisterial districts, it is totally silent on the procedure or responsibility for establishing federal congressional districts.

    So, I’m wondering why you say the state Supreme Court “usurped legislative prerogative” to establish federal congressional districts? While custom may have established that the legislature had always done it, lacking constitutional direction or delegation, wasn’t the General Assembly “usurping” a power that no one had granted them, except themselves, and that to date no one had challenged them on the issue?

    “Usurping prerogative” sounds like a rather grand term to throw about casually, especially when addressing something that has been going on all along.

    • Sebastian says:

      The Elections Clause of the federal constitution grants the power to define districts to the state legislature. The Supreme Court has ruled that the legislature can delegate the task of drawing districts. They have even ruled that ballot measures, as a function of valid lawmaking authority, can assign the task to a commission (a case I think was wrongly decided, but it’s the law).

      But in this case, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has no power to redraw districts because it does not have lawmaking power, and the PA constitution does not grant it one. I’d still cry partisan hackery declaring the districts unconstitutional, but not too loudly. However the Court also taking upon itself powers that it does not have is an unforgivable sin against republican government.

      • Pennsylvania Observer says:

        Ahh, I did not catch that the federal constitution had directed that state legislatures have the power. Thanks!

        However, on the question of whether the state Supreme Court ever has the power to legislate, I think this from the state constitution may be relevant.

        Pennsylvania Constitution, Article II, Section 17

        (h) If a preliminary, revised or final reapportionment plan is not filed by the commission within the time prescribed by this section, unless the time be extended by the Supreme Court for cause shown, the Supreme Court shall immediately proceed on its own motion to reapportion the Commonwealth.

        Perhaps that has always been federally unconstitutional, and this will be the test that proves it?

        • Sebastian says:

          That’s probably constitutional under Arizona Legislate v. Arizona Redistricting Commision because it’s a function of law. But that only permits the PA Supreme Court to act in a specific limited circumstance when the legislature fails to act on the census.

          The question before the court now is whether the court can claim the power to draw districts with no function of law. Ordinarily the state Supreme Court is the final arbiter of state law, absent a federal question. But in this case the elections clause provides a federal question.

          • Pennsylvania Observer says:

            Part of my point all along has been that the question is a good deal more nuanced than suggested by just saying “the state Supreme Court usurped the powers of the legislature!”

            In terms of Article I, Section 4 of the federal constitution, the state legislature and The People did grant an explicit role to the state Supreme Court as to establishing “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections.” The legislature in 1968 created Article II, Section 17(g) in the state constitution, and The People approved it in referendum. I believe the question will now be, how narrow the application of that specific section is held to be.

            You will detect that I am really straining to play jailhouse lawyer here, but I’m thinking of the principle in law that, legislation that was unconstitutional all along, never was law; as if it never had existed. The state Supreme Court could not act on the existing congressional districting until someone called the question. Given that when called upon, the state Court declared the existing districting unconstitutional, that meant it was not valid from its first day of existence, and the time requirement cited in Article II, Section 17 was never met, making intervention by the state Supreme Court as prescribed in 17(g) valid.

            But, now we are back to the fact that nowhere in the state constitution are standards established for congressional redistricting; so, can the state Supreme Court at all have had a foundation for saying that the existing gerrymandering, no matter how egregious, was unconstitutional?

            • Sebastian says:

              Everything is always more nuanced that you can say in a sentence. But I do believe what the PA Supreme Court did was very illegal. The only question is whether the Supreme Court has any authority, or will claim any authority, to review.

              Even absent the elections clause, I would argue that a court taking up lawmaking power it was not explicitly given also violates the guarantee clause, but SCOTUS has largely made the guarantee clause non-judicable.

    • Joe says:

      Yup. And just like the Feinstein Ban, this bill will ban ALL “TRANSFERS”. That means when you die, if you own an “assault weapon”, no one can inherit that firearm. It becomes federally prohibited CONTRABAND. That provision opens the floodgates to create a centralized, national, gun-registry.

    • Ian Argent says:

      1 feature test, adjustable stock isn’t an evil feature, but forward grip is.

      Let’s see where this goes.

    • The_Jack says:

      It also looks like barrel shrouds that “fully or partially incompuses the barrel,” are also an evil feature.

      So… unless the gun has a full stock you can’t have anything covering the barrel for your hand to rest on.

  6. Joe says:

    Everyone blames guns .
    How about blaming XBox, video games?
    Ever watch one?
    I’m not a gun owner.
    Watch these games people are playing.
    Machine guns, multiple targets.

    • Ian Argent says:

      Yes, plenty of people blame video games. No, there’s no more correlation to “video games make them do it” than there is to “guns make them do it.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *