Idiotic Liberal Anti Gun Headline Of The Week
This headline comes straight out of my home state: Pennsylvania.
But, before we get to it, let the records show that since 1974, there has been a state law that says no municipalities are able to make their own laws regarding guns. Since that time, regardless of the law, municipalities have felt the need to break it by introducing their own laws. Some of these laws would make it a crime to discharge a weapon within city limits, even out of self-defense.
Common sense or not—they are breaking state law each time they enact their own gun laws.
As you can see, when the liberal headline reads: PA lawmakers need to get serious about guns, I get my undies all bunched up. After all, this is the state I call home and where I rest my head. I can all but guarantee, however, that if the Pennsylvania state law makers get “serious about guns” in a negative way, I'll be calling a different state my home.
What's the background on what's going on here in Pennsylvania? At the end of 2014, the outgoing Republican Governor passed a state gun law, as part of a much larger bill that encompassed more than just guns. The law basically said that anyone can sue a municipality who passes any un-constitutional firearms related laws. Please note, that this bill would enforce the fact that all extra gun laws be held accountable, because they are all illegal. More on that in a minute.
The author responsible for spewing this mess said that the manner in which the law was passed was not constitutional in that it was attached to a much bigger one. We aren't going to argue otherwise, because that is beyond the scope of this article. What is important to note, however, is that each time a town, county or city passes a gun-related law outside of what the state has passed, it's illegal. So, we don't even need to argue over whether or not the 2014 bill was Constitutional. The illegal laws should never even have been passed to begin with.
After all, the following is taken right from Title 18 of Pennsylvania law:
“No county, municipality or township may in any manner regulate the lawful ownership, possession, transfer or transportation of firearms, ammunition or ammunition components when carried or transported for purposes not prohibited by the laws of this Commonwealth.”
That law was put in place for one very important reason:
No single person can keep up with all of the different laws across the entire state.
If that was the case, we'd each have to memorize thousands of different sets of rules. That's just insane!
Title 18 is much longer than that little paragraph, and covers all sorts of goodies. If you'd like a good read, check it out.
So, what's the point? Pennsylvania does need to get serious about guns—just like the fanatic liberal pointed out. To that, we can agree. It's just that, we only need to follow one set of gun laws so that each time I cross into a different county, township or city, I'm not breaking the law and becoming an accidental criminal. After all, who can keep up with so many different sets of rules?
It's bad enough that whenever I travel out of state I've got to figure out what I can and cannot do. Am I only allowed a gun with a mag capacity of 10 rounds? Am I even allowed to bring my gun to this communist state? If so, where am I allowed to take it?
Whenever local governments are allowed to do whatever they want, against what the governing state or commonwealth has enacted, only one outcome is possible: eventual chaos. The local governments need to adhere to the state law, regardless of what they think is important. If they disagree, they need to bring it to the state level, and see if they can pass it in the correct manner.
What do you think? Should local governments be forced to follow the laws that the governing state or commonwealth has put into place? Let us know in the comments below.
March 18, 2016 at 12:21 PM
The federal government AND state governments have absolutely no authority to regulate any firearm “keeping it out of the hands of law abiding citizens.” If someone is arrested and convicted of a serious crime they do but even that is considered a violation of the second amendment (if interpreted correctly) because nothing in the second amendment says they can. Therefore, they cannot. Federal government is forbidden to do anything not specifically allowed within the context of the constitution. The constitution is a document of restrictions for the federal government. Many presidents in the past have not liked for exactly that reasons. We now see what happens without it the federal government runs wild as it is under obama.
The second amendment was written the way it was because the armed civilian (militia) is the force that made winning the revolutionary war possible. Without the armed civilian militia the war would have been lost. The regular Army would have fought, (and did for some time) the war the way England fought all wars standing out in the open and firing at each other at about a hundred yards (sometimes less). During that time the American Regulars were losing badly. The turning point was with the addition of the militia. The Brits tactics sometimes described (in jest in a humorous skit by Bill Crosby called The Flip Of a Coin) as wearing red and marching in a straight line. The civilians, used to fighting Indians, fought from behind cover and the Brits failed to adjust. They lost! Any other definition of militia in order to take guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens is totally incorrect as well as misguided. The above is verifiable with some easy research.
March 18, 2016 at 6:13 AM
this goes back to the presumption localities can require the reporting of lost and stolen guns…the courts have basically said they can’t rule on this until someone is actually charged….in effect,..a test case…which has yet to happen…thus giving this issue “legs”…