Philadelphia and Gun Conrol

[xxwaldoxx-cl]

All I can say is WOW!
State says no, so the city goes ahead and does it anyway. As a gun owner, I am glad I do not live in Philly anymore...

-----


http://www.kyw1060.com/City-Moves-Ah...isburg/1898259


City Moves Ahead With Gun Laws, Despite Harrisburg




by KYW's Mike Dunn

Philadelphia's effort to get its own gun laws stepped up a notch on Thursday as a City Council committee okayed nine such laws without approval from Harrisburg.

City Council is already suing the Pennsylvania state legislature for the right to enact its own gun laws. But even before that case is settled, a Council committee went ahead and approved nine new guns laws, with final passage by Council expected next week.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled in the 1990s that such laws would require okay from state lawmakers, but councilman Darrell Clarke, a sponsor of this package, doesn't agree:

"We believe that we are within our rights to implement every single bill that we have passed."

Among the nine bills approved by the committee are ones requiring the reporting of lost or stolen guns, and the reporting of all sales of ammunition. Another would limit handgun sales to one per person per month within Philadelphia.

Testifying in support of the measures was deputy police commissioner Richard Ross (in file photo at right), who was thrilled with the committee passage:

"We believe that in order to have a long-term impact on gun violence in the city, that these are some of the bills that absolutely need to be passed. We're not saying that that they are a panacea, but we believe it will go a long way toward helping us."

Mayor Nutter has indicated that he will likely sign the bills and begin enforcing the gun laws even if, as some believe, the lack of Harrisburg approval makes them illegal.

And Clarke expects the state to fight the city's efforts:

"We anticipate that the state, along with the National Rifle Association, will very quickly challenge our ability to implement those bills."

[thisone326]

when it comes to gun control...i myself have never fired/owned a gun, but i normally don;t mind if others do.

some stats about Philly and guns:

if you are shot in the US, you have a 25% chance of it being in Philly

philly gunshootings are out of control, and their current laws obviously are not working. i;m not saying this is the right step, just that i see it as understandable to try something new since their current stuff have been awefully unsuccessful

[thisone326]

also...after reading the article...there's nothing thats going through that will inhibit the purchase of a weapon...only a restriction to 1 handgun per month per person.

maybe its just my not understanding the love of guns, but i don;t see this as a great inhibitor to the 2nd amendment

[JoeyBear]

Any time one law passes, more are sure to come. I had my carry conceal permit while I lived in Alaska and miss carrying. I never want government limiting my rights while they don't fully enforce the rules they've already enacted on people who carry illegally and use weapons to commit crimes. Don't make more laws, enforce the ones already approved. I will never post pics or talk about what I have because that's no ones business. I also don't want big brother to know when I buy a box of shells or what type of ammo I'm buying. Too easy to make a list of what I have. Bangers and criminals are just gonna drive 30 minutes to a different town and pick-up what they want and tranport said weapon/ammo back into Philly. Ridiculous rules to limit the rights of law abiding citizens and criminals/bangers won't give a rat's ass.

[hiway_86-cl]

Well said Joey!!

[karmaz00]

note to self to visit philly. j/k

[Doogie]

well said Joey

[FN in MT-cl]

Couple of problem with feel good laws like this.... #1 they in REALITY do nothing to harass the criminal element. And #2....They don't work!!!


Do any of You think that Joe Felon cares a twit about Laws such as this??? What difference does registering either guns or ammo make if he steals or gets his weapon from out of state anyway??

Want an easy solution? Make the use of a firearm or even mere possession of a firearm during the commission of any crime a minimum/mandatory TEN years in Prison. Sounds like a good idea Doesn't it. BUT the problem is what we used to laughingly call in the Cop business... "That pesky Constitution".

The criminal can stay out of prison with continuances, appeals, etc for years and years. And We pay for it. The legal system is a problem, lack of space in prisons a problem, it goes on and on.

Mandating more gun laws doesn't help the problem. SECURING firearms so they are tougher to steal,keeping them off the street IS a good idea though.

FN in MT

[thisone326]

Originally Posted by FN in MT

The criminal can stay out of prison with continuances, appeals, etc for years and years. And We pay for it. The legal system is a problem, lack of space in prisons a problem, it goes on and on.

FN in MT

the legal system is a problem, but the prisons have become a private industry, prisons will be built to accomodate any prisoners....as it is we have too many prisoners for non-violent crimes...i do not see minor drug possession as a reasonable for years in prison.

[ArrowJ]

Originally Posted by thisone326

maybe its just my not understanding the love of guns, but i don;t see this as a great inhibitor to the 2nd amendment

It's not your misunderstanding the love of guns, its your misunderstanding the 2nd Amendment...I'm not saying that to be a jerk, just to clarify.

[BigBuddha76]

if Frank Rizzo hadnt died before he was re-elected as mayor, this wouldnt be happening.

just do a search on frank rizzo and nightstick, and you'll see what I mean

[thisone326]

i honestly mean to offense by this, so please no one on this board take it that way...if you do, i apologize, this is what i believe.

i view the second amendment differently than most, i have two direct family members that are lawyers, and i have read through their books and i intrepret the 2nd amendment as many of the men who wrote it did, which was the the right to bear arms was for militia and those who had rifles at the time were members of milita.


i have no problem with rifles, shotguns...my quarrel is with hand guns, which have little use in a militia

[ArrowJ]

Originally Posted by thisone326

i view the second amendment differently than most, i have two direct family members that are lawyers, and i have read through their books and i intrepret the 2nd amendment as many of the men who wrote it did, which was the the right to bear arms was for militia and those who had rifles at the time were members of milita.

It's not your misunderstanding the love of guns, its your misunderstanding the 2nd Amendment...I'm not saying that to be a jerk, just to clarify.

[thisone326]

legislation is open to intrepretation...any judge will tell you that. any of the amendments can have multiple meanings.

freedom of speech, it seems, means freedom to say whatever you want, but thats not the truth.

please don;t crucify me over this....i know i am in the minority especially on this board...i am not meaning to be offense

[flathead59]

Originally Posted by thisone326

the legal system is a problem, but the prisons have become a private industry, prisons will be built to accomodate any prisoners....as it is we have too many prisoners for non-violent crimes...i do not see minor drug possession as a reasonable for years in prison.

Not busting your chops Neill, or saying that you're not entitled to your opinion. I do think however, that you may not be aware of all the facets of this issue. I certainly don't claim to be an expert, but for most of my 50 years I have studied and watched it. We (law abiding gun owners) have made a lot of progress, but it is an ongoing battle. Here's my completely unsollicited opinion.

Actually I don't completely agree that the "legal system" is the problem. The problem is that laws don't always stop people from committing crimes, they simply afford the means to punish the violators (maybe) after the fact. The cop on the street (not cop bashing, I work with and have great respect for em) are not collectively tasked with preventing someone from hurting/killing/robbing/raping any individual. Their primary function is to investigate and resolve crimes that have already occurred. That does me little good when I'm walking my dog and get accosted, or someone breaks into my home.

The problem with I see with laws like PA is pushing is that they are like spiderwebs. They end up effecting things that are not obvious. Take the requirement to report weapons stolen law. The way it is written, a gun owner has a legal requirement to report a weapon stolen within 24 hours. If I'm on vacation for a week, and my weapon is missing when I get home, I'm presumed guilty of violating that law. In my opinion, the intent of this type of law is to make the average law abiding citizen decide that firearms ownership isn't worth the potential legal ramifications. The end goal of all these groups is to ban firearms altogether, although most groups won't openly admit that today like they would have 10 years ago. Several of the people that are pushing these bills have spoken openly about admiring the Brits, Canadians and Australians for making possession of firearms illegal for the comman man. They never talk about the fact that the firearms ban hasn't reduced violent crime in those countries. As a matter of fact, the violent crime rate has soared. When Florida became one of the first states to pass a "Shall Issue" concealed weapons permit law, the banners wailed that it would be a huge shootout at the OK Corral. It didn't happen. Nor did it happen in any of the other states in which a reasonable permit system was enacted. Funny how that works. A bad guy isn't nearly as eager to jump a person if that person may be armed. That completely changes the good guy-bad guy dynamic, and that makes bad guys nervous. The states/cities that have the most restrictive laws on firearm possession have the highest violent crime rates. But, we have not learned that particular lesson. And as far as the 2nd Amendment being clear that the right to keep and bear arms is a collective right not an individual one, if it was really that obvious it wouldn't be in front of the Supreme Court right now. In the time in which the Constitution was drafted, every able bodied man was obligated to be a member of the malitia. And they also realized that it was their obligation to protect themselves and their families/property. And "militia" didn't mean the same thing in the 1700s that it does today. For all intents and purposes, everybody was in the National Gaurd.