Pennsylvania

Imagine walking out of your house and seeing a flock of police cars filling the street.  Suppose you're a photographer, and you snap a few photos - or maybe you just want a quick image to send to your friends - "look what happened on my street today!"  Then imagine you get arrested for it.

This is not some fantasy of life in a police state; it happened to Neftaly Cruz, a Philadelphia resident:

"They threatened to charge me with conspiracy, impeding an investigation, obstruction of a investigation. ? They said, 'You were impeding this investigation.' (I asked,) "By doing what?' (The officer said,) 'By taking a picture of the police officers with a camera phone,'" Cruz said.

The police later denied telling Cruz that he was breaking the law by using his cellphone.  If that's true, why was he arrested in the first place?  Cruz was later released without being charged - unsuprising as they had nothing with which to charge him.

Be wary, citizens, lest the police swat you like an annoying fly for having the gall to watch them while they do their job on a public street.

Gun-control advocates on Wednesday urged a gubernatorial advisory commission to endorse a proposal to limit handgun purchases in Pennsylvania to one per month when the panel makes recommendations next week.

"We must rid the community of so many guns, make them harder to purchase and teach people other ways to settle their disputes," Diane Edbril of CeaseFirePA told a Capitol news conference.

Remember when there was an election coming it, and it was all about responsible gun ownership and common-sense gun safety legislation?  Now that the elections are over, for the moment, gun control groups are letting the mask slip a little bit.  Now, it's "We must rid the community of ... guns".

I'll remember this one for the next election.   So should you.

The Geek with a .45 has a legislative alert up for Pennsylvanians concerning House Bill 2799, which makes some fairly awful changes to the concealed-carry provisions. The gun controllers in PA have learned that gun control loses elections and so they are trying to pass this one right after the elections, hoping that voters won't remember what they did by the time the musical chairs need to be shuffled again. Get your phones out and ring some politicians.

Another liberal court has ruled that the law doesn't mean what the law plainly means. In this case it's a court ruling that says the police can record everyone who purchases a handgun in the state, and the result is not a "gun registry" (which would be illegal under state law). If that raises your eyebrows, be assued mine have already hit the ceiling. Thanks to Gun Watch for spotting it.

The "daily local", a PA paper, has a truly awful "news" story about the Assault Weapons Ban. It provides some good targets for activism. And the comments are absolutely wonderful.

"I think it?s something to consider," said U.S. Rep. Jim Gerlach, R-6th, of West Pikeland. "I want to see what a final bill would look like." One House bill would provide a straight 10-year extension of the assault weapons ban. Another measure has been introduced that would outlaw more firearms, said Gerlach. He added that Congress could vote on the bill when lawmakers return to Washington, D.C., in September. "Law enforcement feels it?s been effective," said Gerlach, "so that?s good feedback to have."

The only problem with this: the bill hasn't been effective and even the anti-gun groups agree with that assessment. If you want to contact Gerlach to tell him he's wrong, here is his contact information. You won't be able to email him, since his website is not exactly the height of sophistication. But you can use "Pennsylvania" and "19343" in the house.gov email tool. There's suggested text at the bottom.

Of course, it's not surprising that a politician would believe that law enforcement feels the ban has been effective. Why? Seems the Pennsylvania Old Boys Network Chiefs of Police Association told him they wanted it to pass. It's easy for a politician to misinterpert that as the ban being "effective". But then, their spokesman tells lies to the press, so he probably tells lies to politicians too:

"If the ban is lifted, people will be able to purchase fully automatic weapons, and they will be able to use those automatic weapons," he said. "It could jeopardize the lives of the public or police officers or others."

Well, except for the minor matter that fully-automatic weapons aren't affected by the law. The ban covers semi-automatic firearms only.

Easttown Police Chief Thomas Armstrong, who said the statewide police chiefs? resolution to support continuing the ban was decided by a close vote, also favors its renewal.

If it was a close vote, why couldn't the paper find a single police chief who opposed renewal?

"They?re not hunting weapons," he said. "They?re for one purpose and one purpose alone, and that?s to kill people."

Sometimes you gotta. The second amendment is not about duck hunting.

According to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, the 19 guns covered by the Assault Weapons Act are semiautomatic versions of fully automatic guns designed for military use. Military features of these weapons enhance their capacity to shoot multiple targets rapidly, said the Washington, D.C.-based organization, allowing shooters to fire 20 to more than 100 rounds without reloading.

No piece of shrilly biased "journalism" would be complete without a lie from the Brady Campaign. The ban covers a lot more than 19 firearms. But since the Brady statement contradicts their police chief earlier, why didn't they challenge one or the other? I'm not sure if their bias is showing, or if their editors are blind. Perhaps both.

"We never really had a problem here in Chester County," said Franciscus, who has been a county law enforcement officer for 29 years. "But that doesn?t mean there wouldn?t be."

So, in 29 years, you've never had an assault weapon problem. Two-thirds of that time was not covered by the ban. Why do you think you would suddenly have problems if the ban expires?

Armstrong, who said local police officers occasionally encounter armed individuals, agreed. "I don?t think there?s any reason that the general public needs that type of weapon," he said.

Individuals armed with assault weapons? Or just armed? For that matter, what's wrong with being armed -- after all, I am sometimes armed, and I haven't hurt anyone. Criminals, on the other hand, don't obey gun laws.

As for whether the general public needs "that type of weapon"... the nobility sure do like their privileges.

A November NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll indicated that 78 percent of adults who were surveyed nationwide said the ban should be renewed.

"We feel, along with 80 percent of the public, the weapons have no place in America?s communities," said Eric Howard, a Brady Campaign spokesman. "You end up spraying dozens of bullets back and forth indiscriminately. We?ve just seen so many tragic consequences of that over the years."

Did you tell them what the law did before you asked them to render a policy opinion? Thought not. Even police chiefs don't understand what the ban actually bans, how should the average citizen have any idea?

In 1984, the Brady Campaign said, a man used an UZI assault pistol and a shotgun to kill 21 people and wound 19 others at a San Ysidro, Calif., McDonald?s.

At the 1993 Branch-Davidian standoff in Waco, Texas, the organization said, four Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives special agents were killed and 16 others were wounded with an arsenal of more than 170 assault weapons. According to a federal affidavit, the weapons were purchased legally from gun dealers and at gun shows.

When the Brady Bunch says "over the years", they mean it. One incident in 1984? Blaming Waco on assault weapons, rather than the BATF and FBI idiots? Please.

However, since the 1994 ban, said Howard, the number of semiautomatic weapons that have been traced to crime has decreased by 66 percent.

Yeah -- from a little under 3% to a little over 1%. Not that the decline is actually statistically significant.

Terrorists can go to gun shows and purchase assault weapons that were manufactured before 1994 in states that do not require background checks, [The Brady Campaign] said.

Gee, half of this article was written by the Brady Bunch. What a surprise. But with respect to that specific claim: Sure, they can do that. Have they? Apparantly not. They've used boxcutters. Would renewing the ban change the fact that terrorists can buy legal weapons from private owners (if they can convince the private owner that they are not actually a terrorist)? No. Pre-ban firearms and magazines would still be available at gun shows from private sellers.

But even if that wasn't the case, terrorists could buy a new firearm that lacks the banned features. Since the banned features are generally cosmetic, rather than functional, they won't be inconvenienced much. Unless they were planning a bayonet charge or something.

The Assault Weapons Act specifically exempts 661 sporting rifles and shotguns traditionally used for hunting.

I thought it only covered 19 guns?

Lobbyists with the National Rifle Association and some of its members have attacked the assault weapons legislation as being too vague and lacking enforcement.

Too vague? Not really. Too silly is more like it. Heard about any drive-by bayonetings lately? No?

Lacking enforcement? What enforcement is required? Manufacturers stopped making them, and retooled their factories to make legal versions without the silly cosmetic features that got Feinstein so worried.

It's clear this "journalist" didn't even bother to contact the NRA; she just wrote what she thinks they always say about gun laws.

Clem Rost of Delaware County, a member of Treetop Sportsmen, also opposes the ban. He said the ban "outlaws guns on cosmetic features." In addition, he said, some of the banned weapons are used in government-sponsored rifle competitions. "They are a minuscule portion of guns that are actually used in crime," Rost said. "They are very, very difficult, if not impossible, to own."

This is the token pro-gun opinion, tacked like an afterthought on the bottom of the story where no one will read it.

Mr Gerlach,

I understand that you told the Daily Local News that you would be willing to consider renewing the assault weapons ban once you saw the final bill. You also told them that "law enforcement feels it has been effective". But that's not true; if you read the government study[1] on the matter, you'll learn that the ban failed to reduce the average number of victims per gun murder incident, or multiple gunshot wound victims. You'll also learn that there is no evidence that the ban reduces crime in general or even crimes committed with assault weapons in particular.

If you were listening to the arguments of the Pennsylvania Police Chiefs Association, as reported in the story[2], then you were lied to. The Assault Weapons Ban covers only semi-automatic firearms with certain cosmetic features, NOT fully-automatic firearms.

Fully-automatic firearms have been heavily regulated since 1934 and banned from manufacture for civilians since 1986. Legally-owned fully-automatic firearms in civilian hands have never been used in crime.

[1]: http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/173405.pdf

[2]: http://www.dailylocal.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=12390404&BRD=1671&PAG=461&dept_id=17782&rfi=6

Gun Owners of America makes the National Rifle Association look like Neville Chamberlain at Munich.

People have been known to sell out whatever principles they have left for politics. Like the Republican Party hierarchy and the NRA endorsing U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter over U.S. Rep. Pat Toomey in the April 27 primary.

The GOA prefers to stick to its guns.

"Specter has always voted for gun owners -- when we do not need him," said Larry Pratt, executive director of the 300,000-member organization. He describes it as a grassroots citizens' lobby for the Second Amendment since its founding in Virginia in 1975.

"(Specter) is the reason why the semi-automatic gun ban got out of committee and became law. He left the room so he would not be present to vote."

The primary in Pennsylvania is today (April 27th). Specter, a Republican incumbent (and often called a "RINO", for "Republican In Name Only"), is being challenged for the nomination by a pro-gun Republican. The NRA is backing Specter, because the NRA likes to play the middle and they are hesitant to step away from an incumbent, especially if it risks losing his support should he win without the endorsement. The GOA, on the other hand, have a different view; they like the challenger, Pat Toomey, a current US Representative.

Who's right? I don't know. But I trust the GOA more. And Toomey has the advantage of being an incumbent for his own seat in the House; it's not as much of an upset for him to win as it would be normally. This is one of those primaries that are sometimes more important than the actual election, especially when the district is relatively uncontested.

State Rep. Dan Frankel urged fellow lawmakers Friday to pass state-level restrictions on assault weapons in preparation for the expiration of the federal law.

Frankel, D-Allegheny, announced he was sponsoring a bill that would restrict the manufacture and sale of assault weapons in Pennsylvania. The federal ban on assault weapons has a sunset provision and is scheduled to expire in 2004; the renewal of the ban was part of a gun package that did not make it through Congress earlier this month.

"The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania faces a choice," Frankel said. "It can either turn back the clock to the days when Uzis and AK-47s flooded our streets and put our communities at risk, or it can again stand up for public safety."

"Assault weapons serve no legitimate civilian purpose and are the weapon of choice for criminals. We need to keep these weapons off our streets and out of our communities," Police Chief Robert W. McNeilly Jr. said in a statement.

How are they the choice of criminals if less than 2% of firearm crimes are committed with ANY RIFLE, much less "assault weapons"?

On July 1, 2003, three days before Pennsylvanians were to begin celebrating our Independence from tyrannical British rule, 13 members of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives introduced a bill that would give law enforcement the authority to confiscate all handguns in private possession, unless they are approved by a newly created Handgun Standard Commission. The catch 22 is that no handgun currently manufactured today will be able to comply with the standards outlined in the legislation that this Commission must use to approve handgun sales. These standard(s) will require that the only handguns that will be permitted to be owned will be of the so-called personalized-smart guns design, and no existing handgun will be permitted to be modified.

It looks like yet another attempt to set up a "regulatory body" that can implement gun control without needing to pass laws for each new rule, in the guise of creating "safety standards".

Saying ''there is a doozy of a problem here,'' Allentown Councilwoman Gail Hoover expressed outrage Sunday over the shooting of three dogs, two fatally, by constables serving a warrant on a man who had not paid parking ticket fines. ''These were parking violations,'' Hoover said Sunday. ''This was not Charles Manson who got out and we had to capture. This is a guy who didn't move his car so the street cleaner could get through.''

Scanning a driver's license at the local liquor store can reveal more than just age. When a patron's ID is scanned to ensure authenticity at a liquor store, the person's purchase and identification information is added to the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board's (PLCB) electronic database in Harrisburg, PLCB spokeswoman Molly McGowan said. Police can retrieve the information for use in criminal cases, she said.

When Lola Biuckians perused a list of township expenses last week, the Upper Southampton supervisor saw something she didn't like: a $450 fee for two police officers to take a tactical response team course through the National Rifle Association. The board chairwoman not only objected, she voted against approving a whole month's worth of township expenses at the last board meeting. "I have a problem with the NRA because I'm opposed to guns and we can't get any meaningful gun legislation because this group is so powerful," Biuckians said last week. "And I don't like the idea of supporting them with taxpayer money."

The question of whether Anthony Sarkis should lose his job for taking a loaded gun into Shaler Area High School last month has polarized people in the Shaler Area School District, creating divisions within the close-knit community. Many residents, including some parents, think the school board should not bend on its decision to dismiss the high school teacher fired last week over the infraction. Others believe the quality of the job he does should outweigh the honest mistake he made.

Zero tolerance strikes again. This guy didn't kill anyone, didn't make any threats, didn't even mean to bring his firearm into the school. Someone else found it in his bag along with his schoolbooks (and what were they doing searching his bag anyway?). And for this, people want him fired.