Category: Politics

One of our state reps seems to understand why Gun Control has a hard time going anywhere these days:

State Rep. Dan Frankel took note of the e-mails he received last week concerning a package of gun control bills emotionally endorsed by Gov. Ed Rendell.

Unofficially, the count was about 1,000 to 10, with the gun-rights lobby winning that grassroots campaign just as it succeeded in rebuffing Mr. Rendell’s efforts to sway the House Judiciary Committee.

Did I ever mention I love Pennsylvania gun owners? We beat them 100 to friggin one! That’s how to get things done. Frankel goes on to say:

“There’s no political penalty for those that don’t support [gun control] measures, but there is a political penalty if they do,” Mr. Frankel said of the impressive political activism that continues on behalf of sportsmen and other gun owners in Pennsylvania.

That’s exactly what Ed Rendell fails to understand. Polls don’t matter. What matters is we’ll turn out to vote for the other guy if you vote to screw us. The people that you polled barely understood the issue, and won’t be pulling a lever based on it anyway.

“We know based on independent polling that most Pennsylvanians support stronger gun control laws,” he said. “The question is where on those persons’ priority list of issues does gun safety rank, as opposed to where on the list of the gun advocates. … The other side are single-issue voters and that carries a lot of weight.”

Yes, it does. I have said before I’m not always a single issue voter, but gun rights ranks very high on my political calculus, because it tells me an awful lot about how a certain politician views his relationship with those that he governs, and his respect for limits being placed on governmental power. The gun issue is a great litmus test for how much a political candidate cares about liberty.

“This is a marathon, not a sprint,” Mr. Rendell said. “We are not going to go away.”

Yes, it is, and we have a lot more endurance than your folks do, Governor. Do you really want to start this political fight? Because I promise you, we’re very interested in finishing it, and not on terms you are going to like.

In addition to the vigilant NRA, which on its national Web site immediately posted information about the House Judiciary Committee’s votes and each committee member’s position on them, a newer coalition of smaller gun-rights organizations adds to the effectiveness of the gun-rights lobby. They banded together two years ago to win legislative compromise on how gun owners would be affected by a new law concerning protection-from-abuse orders, and were also active on last week’s votes.

“We are more organized now than we’ve ever been in Pennsylvania,” said Kim Stolfer, legislative committee chairman of the Allegheny County Sportsmen’s League, which is part of the coalition.

I doubt this was the effect the Governor was predicting he would have.

Jeff Soyer points to a pretty good editorial in the Pittsburgh Tribune Review.  I agree with the editorial that one-gun-a-month and weakening preemption are unconstitutional on their face.   I’m not sure the “Lost and Stolen” bill is, even though I think it’s still bad public policy, and shouldn’t be passed into law.  My reasoning is that it’s a regulatory requirement rather than a restraint on anyone’s ability to possess, carry, buy, lend or sell a firearm.  The state conceivably has the power to require reporting of a lost or stolen gun under it’s powers to control it’s militia.  Nonetheless, the point is a good one:

If a majority of Pennsylvanians deem it necessary to enact Rendell-like gun controls, wouldn’t they agree to amend Article I, Section 21? What those of Rendell’s ilk fear — and why such constitutional end-runs are so routinely pressed — is that a majority of Pennsylvanians likely don’t support such schemes.

I don’t see any serious movement in this direction in Pennsylvania.  But then again, if you can just get judges to render the right meaningless, why bother doing it the hard way?

Geekwitha.45 and EgregiousCharles actually went to Harrisburg to help stick it to Rendell personally. He relays to us why HB 29, the lost and stolen gun reporting requirement, is a bad idea, and also relays some of the substance of questioned that were asked about the bill.

NRA has a list of who did and who didn’t vote in favor of the gun control bills before the House Judiciary Committee this morning.

Please contact the members of the House Judiciary Committee TODAY and thank those that voted “No” to these anti-gun measures. Also, please contact those committee members that voted “yes” and ask them why they voted to restrict the rights of Pennsylvania’s law-abiding gun owners.

I agree, it’s important to follow up with the legislators. It’s important to let our allies know their support is appreciated, and to let our foes know we’re paying attention. Follow the link to get contact info, and to find out how house members voted.

UPDATE: Looking back at my predictions, there were a few surprises:

Representative Chelsea Wagner (wow, she may be in favor of gun control, but she’s pretty cute), who replaced NRA A rated Mike Diven, voted against us on both bills.   That’s really disappointing.

Representative Kate Harper voted with us on weakning preemption and against us on one-gun-a-month.  She keeps her C rating for that, I think.  I thought she’d cave to Rendell completely.  Glad I was wrong.

Representative Mackereth I put down as maybe, and she voted with us.  She responded to me:

Please know that I will NOT be supporting HB 18, 22, or 29.  I feel the focus should be placed on prevention programs that have been proven to work rather than band-aid measures that are ineffective.  I am continuing my efforts to focus on crime prevention, while protecting the rights of gun owners.

Good show.  NRA should upgrade her B+ to an A rating.

Representative Bernie O’Neil voted with us on preemption but against us on one-gun-a-month.  That’s disappointing, because he’s from my county.  He’s A- rated.  I might suggest that after this he deserves to lose a whole letter grade and go to B-.

Here’s how the votes came down.

1. HB 18 on weakening preemption.  10 Yeas, 19 Nays
2. HB 22 on rationing gun sales.  12 Yeas, 17 Nays
3. HB 29 on reporting lost/stolen guns.  Tabled

The message: Pennsylvania is an overwhelmingly pro-gun rights state.  I hope Bryan Miller and Ed Rendell enjoy their holidays.  I certainly will spend it savoring their sound defeat.

H.B. 29, the lost and stolen provision, was tabled by the legislature:

The committee tabled a measure that would have required gun owners to report to police immediately any gun that was lost or stolen. Owners could face fines or even jail time if they failed to do so. Mr. Rendell said such a reporting requirement would go a long way toward stopping “straw purchasers,” people without a police record who are paid money by criminals to buy guns for them.

Technically, tabling the bill keeps it alive. Rep. Dan Frankel, D-Squirrel Hill, who supported all the bills, said there was some concern among some members that a law-abiding gun owner could face jail time if he or she unintentionally misplaced a gun or failed to report a lost weapon to police. He said the bill may be amended and brought up for a vote sometime later.

There’s very little way they could change this bill to make it acceptable to me.  The more protections for lawful gun owners that get put in it, the weaker its usefulness is as a tool to go after people suspected of straw purchasing, and the case for this bill is already very weak.  If someone is guilty of straw purchasing, they should be charged with that.  This bill will always have the potential to punish honest gun owners along with criminals.