Governor Rendell recently gave three proposals to the house Judiciary Committee. He intended to enact three bills that would aid in regulating gun control laws in Pennsylvania. The first bill would have limited the amount of guns one could purchase in a month. Another would require gun owners to report lost or stolen guns immediately. The other bill would allow local governments to enact their own gun control regulations.
Governor Rendell, a former mayor of Philadelphia used statistics about the homicide rates in the city as a foundation for his plea to the House Judiciary Committee. He also noted the increase in gun violence in Pittsburgh, Harrisburg, and other major Pennsylvania cities.
Governor Rendell’s proposal was important to many in the City of Philadelphia. The rejection of this bill has lead many to wonder, why were these gun control bills shot down?
To many Pennsylvania is known as a hunting state. With the various parks and wildlife areas found within the state the large number of hunters in Pennsylvania continues to increase. Additionally PA has a large NRA chapter, moreover many NRA members and gun lobbyists have political ties in the state.
In an article by Democratic Representative Daylin Leach in the November 28, 2007 Inquirer, he mentioned that he received hundreds of emails from people citing that the bills would be a violation of their second amendment rights. Representative Leach brought out that the bills did not violate citizen’s rights to bear arms but rather that these bills regulate the ways in which citizens observe these rights. He presented an example that focused on our first amendment rights. Although we have the freedom of speech we are restricted from doing many things with that freedom. For instance we are restricted from leaking classified information, or from giving terroristic threats. These restrictions and regulations were put in place with the purpose of maintaining public safety.
Similarly, the gun control bills were to be put in place not with the intent of impeding on ones rights to bear arms but rather with a grand concern for public safety, in particular the citizens of many of the major cities in Pennsylvania. The bills would not restrict one from bearing arms. Rather, they would regulate the amount of handguns that a person would be able to purchase. The bills would also move gun owners to move swiftly to report a stolen or lost weapon. Moreover, the bills would allow municipalities, particularly ones with severe crime rates, to adjust gun laws in the area to uphold public safety.
If a person purchases one handgun a month every month, they would be able to own 12 guns a year in addition to the guns they may already own. This amount of weaponry is more than enough to protect ones family or shoot an animal for sport. However many still feel that these bills do encroach upon their constitutional rights.
Rejecters of the bills also feel that allowing the gun-control bills will not have any effect on the crime rates in many of the major cities. Representative Beverly Mackereth (Republican from Spring Grove) was quoted as saying ”It’s not a quick answer to the problem, but then again I don’t think gun control bills are an answer at all.”
Many have also stated that having local gun ordinances would make it difficult for citizens to comply with the laws in place. One Gun lobbyist stated that the enforcing of the bills could make thousands of different gun laws in our state. Thus, it would make it impossible to comply with these laws.
Although various reasoning and rationale has been given as to why the bills regarding municipalities governing their own laws has been given, very little reasoning as to why gun lobbyist and many legislators rejected the other two bills has been given. In terms of the bill enforcing a one handgun-a-month limit it has been said that this “rations individual liberties”. However the reasoning for the rejection of the one handgun a month bill and the reporting of lost or stolen guns, seems to be more a matter of convenience than a violation of one’s constitutional rights. Keeping in mind the increasing murder rates in many cities as well as the threat to Pennsylvania citizens, one would think that it would outweigh the minor inconvenience of waiting an extra thirty days to purchase a handgun or reporting that your handgun isn’t in the closet you usually keep it in.
We wonder if the gun lobbyist in this case were concerned that these bills would violate citizens’ right to bear arms or whether there would be a slippery slope scenario that would lead to stronger gun control laws and eventual bans on certain weapons. The bottom line in this case was whether or not keeping guns accessible to the average citizen was of more importance than making them inaccessible to criminals. The Judiciary Committee has made their choice.
11 comments:
I dont think that these Represenatatives have a concern for the families living within Urban Communities. Thats why the Bills were shot down.
WHY DO PEOPLE ALWAYS THINK THAT GUN CONTROL IS THE ANSWER TO ALL OF LIFES PROBLEMS?!?!! What about the poverty levels and the lack of moral values?
This is no surprise. The NRA is too strong of a force in this country.
You cant just pick and choose how many guns people get to own. It is a violation of our second ammendment rights!! I have a right to bear arms.
In our major cities people are dying. Why doesnt anybody seem to get that ? Our kids cant even walk the streets. Isnt it worth it ?
I agree with the House Judiciary Committee. Good Job!
Criminals have their own pielines to unregistered illegal weapons.
All that gun control laws will do is to take protection away from law-abiding citizens.
There is a town in New Mexico that has a local law that EVERONE over the age of 18 MUST carry a gun and know how to use it. They have the lowest crime rate on the continent!
The first bill would have limited the amount of guns one could purchase in a month. ---How does this restrict criminals? Who will gain their weapons by theft or black market means. The only thing it does is restrict law abiding citizens. The very people that are not prone to utilizing their weapons for criminal acts.
Another would require gun owners to report lost or stolen guns immediately. ---- We need a law for this? It does not restrict law abiding citizens unduly, but I cannot believe this is a problem. Law abiding citizens are (in my opinion) going to report such a theft.
The other bill would allow local governments to enact their own gun control regulations. --- Local Governments might want to wait for the Supreme Courts ruling on Washington D.C.'s gun laws before going putting more laws on the books.
In my opinion the Governor of PA is 'tossing out' something to show the public he is doing something. In essence and effect, it is eyewash.
Yes criminals by their guns off the black market, but a large amount of them dont. If it means saving some lives isnt it worth it ?
They should have past those bills.
One of the problems with this Bill is Leach. His own party has no respect for this idiot. He won the last election on the Dems landslide and got his promotion for supporting the unconstitutional pay raise. His risque humor website highlighting his interest in porn and young women, make it impossible for fellow legislators to do anything with him, but to use his vote.
Post a Comment