Update on HB2536, the Anti-Reciprocity Bill

Chambered Round, who is in a position to know, notes that the vote has been pushed off another week:

This is starting to look more and more like a diversion tactic to keep focus off of HB40 (Castle Doctrine/Stand Your Ground) in the hopes that bill will, once again, die in committee.

Pennsylvanians, aside from fighting back HB2536, make sure to keep up the pressure on HB40! Contact the members of the House Appropriations Committee, especially the office of Chairman Dwight Evans, and ask them “Where’s the vote on HB40?”

The strategy would seem to be to wear us out and spread us thin in the hopes of running out the clock for HB40, the Castle Doctrine bill.

UPDATE: From Lentz himself:

We are going to hold the bill for a week to see if we can come up with a solution that allows us to keep the permit process local and still prevent known drug dealers from relying on a loophole to get an out of state permit as a get out of jail free card but not interfere in any way with law abiding citizens rights.

More later.

Beer Exemptions

NRA isn’t the only one carving out exemptions for itself. Boston Beer company is getting in the game too:

I would be in favor of the proposal to lower taxes on craft breweries, but I see no reason to create a law that would give Boston Beer a tax advantage until they grow to three times their present size. The idea is to encourage small craft breweries. Once you hit two million barrels, you ain’t small no more. Take it on the chin, Jim, and pay Uncle Sam the full tab. You can afford it.

Hat tip to Liquidity Preference. Personally, I don’t like the idea of special tax statuses at all, even if it’s just for actual craft brewers. But I can also understand small brewers trying to get any leg up they can. The big brewers and distributors have a mega-powerful lobby in DC and state capitols that tailors liquor laws to benefit themselves. It’s regulatory capture at its finest.

Open Borders for the Educated and Skilled?

I am not a fan of completely open borders, because if we did, then everyone who lived in a crappy country would come here all at once, and the institutions of the country would be overwhelmed. But it’s hard for me to see why we’re not letting people like this into the country. It seems to me we could take Europe’s best and brightest, given opportunity on that continent is fast diminishing. Plus, what better way to solve the housing problem than low interest rates combined with people with high paying jobs who suddenly need a place to live in their new country. It’s hard to see the downside of this.

Repeal the 17th Amendment!

Count me with Ilya Somin as someone who has never really agreed that eliminating the 17th Amendment is going to rebalance our federal system away from federal power. Professor Somin writes:

The claim that senators chosen by state legislatures would act to curb the feds relies on the assumption that state governments oppose federal power. In reality, however, they often have a strong interest in supporting it, a point John McGinnis and I drive home inthis article. For example, state governments love federal grants that go to them and constantly lobby for additional federal funds. They also like federal regulations and spending programs that reduce competition between state governments and benefit interest groups that have influence at the state level.

I think there’s a tendency among folks to wish there was a simple, clean fix to the problem. “We just have to change this one thing, then everything would be fine.” or to retrospectively look back on history and say “Ah ha! Here’s where we went wrong.”

But political systems are really only as good as the people who participate in them. If the history of freedom and liberty in this world has taught us anything, it’s that the struggle to preserve it is unending and relentless. There is no easy fix. No magic cure that can automatically rebalance everything for us. If we want small government, we have to struggle for small government, and never stop. More importantly, and this is where Libertarians have fallen down, we have to struggle for it in a serious way that recognizes the reality of the system we’re working in.

The fundamental reason we got big government is the people stopped believing in small government. You won’t get small government back until you recognize that’s your starting point.

Misleading Article on Philly Gun Ordinances

The Philadelphia Inquirer is reporting that the Supreme Court has upheld the local Philadelphia gun ordinances. This is false. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania on Monday denied the appeal of the National Rifle Association, who was dismissed based on standing, and not on the merits. This is still very much an undecided issue. You can read the opinion here. All this really means is that the Supreme Court is letting stand the lower court ruling on the standing issue. This most certainly did not uphold any of Philadelphia’s ordinances on Lost and Stolen.

When it comes to gun issues, it’s always best to ignore the Philly papers. They don’t know what they are talking about most of the time.

More Preemption Issues in Pennsylvania

I don’t when local officials are going to get it through their thick skulls, but they cannot regulate guns. That’s clearly establish law at this point. But it’s not stopping Lackawanna County:

Commissioners approved rules and regulations prohibiting smoking, skateboarding and other activities in county parks, including new restrictions on guns. The rule says, “No unlicensed firearms or weapons are allowed in a park.” Discharging a firearm is also prohibited.

Discharge is probably something they can regulate under the UFA, but this essentially prohibits open carry, which is legal in PA without a license.

Meanwhile, Sheriff John Szymanski said he also plans to challenge the new rule – arguing the county should make it more strict.

“We don’t allow firearms in the park,” said Mr. Szymanski, whose department oversees law enforcement of county parks. “It’s a public facility, and if you walk around with a gun, you’re going to intimidate a lot of people. Our position is we’re not allowing it and we’re going to ask for clarification on that point.”

The wording of park rules, unchanged or made more strict, could set off a constitutional debate on gun rights in Lackawanna County, experts say. County solicitor John O’Brien said they are reviewing the language and looking to see how it can be updated.

What bothers me is this isn’t a debate. You can’t do it. Period. We had this debate a decade ago, it went to the Supreme Court, and we won. Either they are electing incompetent solicitors in all these towns, or they just don’t give a crap what the law is.

Carry Permits “Get Out Of Jail Free” According to Brian Lentz

I have my issues with Pat Meehan, and the Meehan family (who run the Philly GOP), but we have to make sure Brian Lentz goes down to stinging defeat. Statements like this are part of the reason:

“So they essentially get a ‘get-out-of-jail free’ card when they’re stopped carrying a loaded firearm.  They produce a Florida permit and our local law enforcement must honor that which is unacceptable given the arrest record and the background of many of these individuals.”

See, you get out of jail free, because you flash a legal license. Everyone knows, of course, the default for carrying a gun should be to go to jail.

He says the Sunshine State is less strict when it comes to handing out permits, looking only at convictions and not a person’s character.

The Sunshine State is not less strict. They require training, fingerprinting, and a 120 dollar application fee. So far they can point to one bozo out of thousands in the Commonwealth who have Florida licenses. Most Florida license holders, including myself, also have PA LTCs, and only retain Florida’s CWL for expanded recognition from other states.

Philadelphia sure does look at a person’s character though. Unpaid parking tickets? Well, no, you can’t have a permit. What kind of person owes the City of Philadelphia money? Had a gun stolen once? Well, we can’t have you exercising your right to bear arms. You’re not a suitable person.

The UFA, namely the Amendments of Act 17, were supposed to make Philadelphia shall-issue like the rest of the state. But they haven’t. Philadelphia routinely revokes permits for trivial and unlawful reasons. They represent only a smal fraction of statewide permit holders, yet represent a hugely disproportionate numer of revocations. Why do some people seek recourse in a Florida license? Because it’s cheaper than hiring a lawyer to fight a denial or revocation.

Lentz and all his gun hating buddies in the General Assembly need to understand this very simple fact: We’re going to flip the House back this fall, and if you shove this down our throats, we’re going to shove a whole lot of things down your throats you aren’t going to like, which include eliminating or severely limiting the discretion local jurisdictions may exercise in issuing Licenses to Carry Firearms. You want us to be responsible with guns, we’re going to demand officials be responsible with the law. If they can’t be, we’re going to change it. Think carefully before going down this path.

Anti-Gun is now the “Right Flank” of the Democratic Party for PA2010

Supporting gun bans, wanting to reargue Heller, and completely dismantling the state gun laws to overturn the Pennsylvania Supreme Court puts you on the pro-gun side of the Democratic Party in Pennsylvania, at least according to this article on PA2010.com. Really? That would be news to the many pro-gun Democrats in this state who actually support the rights of gun owners.

During the primary battle, we learned that the Democratic gubernatorial candidate, Dan Onorato, was one of the farthest left candidates you could find on the gun issue. The only guy to his left was Joe Hoeffel. The only Democratic gubernatorial candidate who gun owners could come reasonably close to voting for if they were voting single issue was Jack Wagner.

We captured video from most of the Democratic forums before the primary and studied his statements on “public safety,” and those hit on a range of policy issues on the matter of Second Amendment rights:

Onorato Hoeffel Wagner Williams
Ending Preemption
(overturning Ortiz)
Support Support Oppose Support
Semi-Auto Ban Support Support Support Support
Mandatory Locks on Guns
(overturned in Heller)
Support Support Oppose Oppose
Castle Doctrine Oppose Oppose Maybe Oppose
Shut Down Gun Stores Near
Homes, Schools, or Parks
Maybe Support Maybe Support
Limit on # of Guns Maybe
(through local laws)
Support Oppose Support
Eroding Reciprocity Support Support Maybe Support
Ban Gun Ownership w/out
criminal conviction
Support Support Support Support

On this list of what I consider to be “big” issues right now, Onorato goes against gun owners 75% of the time. The other two issues are unknowns, or he would support other government officials in their quest for more gun control. That’s not what we usually consider “on our side” in the gun owning community. (Hoeffel strikes against us 100% of the time, Williams at 88%, and Wagner at 25% of the time with another 38% of the issues as possibly against us.)

If you want to look at the issue from the gun control handbook from CeaseFirePA, their big issues show a similar breakdown. Onorato is with them 85% of the time, and they classify the remaining 15% of the positions as unknown, not in opposition to their agenda. (Hoeffel is with them 100% of the time, Williams 85%, and Wagner 46%. In fact, Williams is actually against them with the other 15% of the proposals which actually makes him more solid on the issue with gun owners than Dan Onorato.)

For context on how Onorato’s positions compare to legislators who have recently voted on some of the policies Onorato is pushing or opposing, here’s another chart. I’ve broken these charts down by NRA grade. (It was too wide with all of them in one, so forgive the repetition, it’s to prove a point.)

Onorato
Not Rated
Lentz
F
Manderino
F
Vitali
F
Wagner
F
Ending Preemption
HB 1044
Support Support Support Support Support
Semi-Auto Ban
HB 1045
Support Oppose Support Support Support
Castle Doctrine
HB 40
Oppose Support Oppose Oppose Support

This table shows that Onorato is farther to the left on recent gun rights policy debates than two of the four F-rated lawmakers on the House Judiciary Committee.

Onorato
Not Rated
Waters
D-
Brennan
D
Caltagirone
D
Shapiro
D
Costa
C
Ending Preemption
HB 1044
Support Support Oppose Support Oppose Oppose
Semi-Auto Ban
HB 1045
Support Support Oppose Support Oppose Oppose
Castle Doctrine
HB 40
Oppose Oppose Support Support Support Support

Let’s look at some who probably fall on the left of the issue, and another who falls squarely in the middle of the issue based on previous grades. Onorato’s policies fall in line with the D- lawmaker, but he’s exactly the opposite of two D legislators and our single C-rated guy on the committee. That doesn’t seem to be very “right flank” to me.

Onorato
Not Rated
Casorio
A
Kula
A
Pallone
A
White
A
Petrarca
A+
Ending Preemption
HB 1044
Support Oppose Oppose Oppose Oppose Oppose
Semi-Auto Ban
HB 1045
Support Oppose Oppose Oppose Oppose Oppose
Castle Doctrine
HB 40
Oppose Support Support Support Support Support

All of these lawmakers are probably the “right flank” of the gun issue for the Democratic Party since they are all A-rated or higher. Most of them carry the NRA’s endorsement. And Dan Onorato doesn’t agree with them on anything – from banning guns to gutting gun laws to even a law dealing with self-defense in your own home.

So, based on statements and specific policy plans, both gun owners and gun controllers agree that Dan Onorato is not on the “right flank” of the Democratic Party on gun issues. So I’m challenging the fine folks at PA2010.com to back up his claim that Onorato is in any way considered to be pro-gun. It would enlightening, especially to all of the Democrats I talked to this weekend who are planning to vote against their party on this specific issue in this race come November.