The state representatives that represent the City of Philadelphia are introducing three bills in Harrisburg:
The first bill would make it illegal for anyone charged with a felony, but not yet convicted, to buy, transfer, sell, or possess a firearm.
The second would prohibit anyone convicted of a felony drug offense as a juvenile from buying or owning a gun as an adult.
The third bill would require a mandatory one-year sentence for carrying a gun without a license. It was first introduced in 2007, but failed to move out of committee.
The first one is a non-starter. We don’t limit constitutional rights based on mere accusation of a crime. There is not enough due process here.
The second I’d be more amiable to, if I thought it would actually do anything to reduce crime for those intent on committing them. Just because a gun control law might be constitutional doesn’t mean it will work. And just because we pass something, doesn’t mean it will be enforced, which brings me to three.
Three is a no go because the city refuses to use the laws it already has. We’ve clearly documented on this blog the City’s utter failure to prosecute criminals who carry firearms illegally.
Enforce the laws you already have before you ask for more. I am not in favor of giving Philadelphia more laws it won’t use against criminals. If the problem is judges, city politicians need to campaign to get new ones. The answer is not to continually blame Harrisburg. Pennsylvania has expanded its gun control laws significantly in the past several decades, and the city has refused to use any of them to actually go after criminals. I think that’s a big deal, and it’s not being talked about, but it’s the the first conversation that should be had before new laws are discussed. Philly politicians keep saying the Commonwealth’s gun control laws are inadqueate. How would they know if they won’t use them?