In addition, Speaker Pelosi recommends we ban guns from crossing state lines.  She will put an end to competitions such as NRA’s Camp Perry, hurt hunters who prefer to take to the fields in a neighboring state, and potentially even restricting whether or not gun owners can take their firearms with them if they move.  These restrictions are absurd!

The only way to shut Nancy Pelosi’s gun control fantasies down is to take quick action to put pressure on “blue dog” Democrats, who come from more conservative districts, and are most vulnerable to calls for gun control.  We have a number of them in Pennsylvania.  They are:

• District 3 – Kathleen A Dahlkemper
• District 4 – Jason Altimire
• District 10 – Christopher Carney
• District 11 – Paul E. Kanjorski
• District 12 – John P. Murtha
• District 17 – Tim Holden

If you live in any of these districts, please use the links above to contact your representative and tell them that you oppose the Speaker Pelosi’s gun control agenda.  Express skepticism about your trust in the Democratic Party to protect your Second Amendment rights.  Be aware that many of the representatives above are pro-gun, and will likely be on our side, but don’t let them take you for granted, and make sure they understand that you expect them to represent the interests of gun owners in your district, and not help Nancy Pelosi bring her San Francisco attitudes on guns to Pennsylvania.

Nancy Pelosi Calls for “Compromise” on Guns

The Scarecrow wasn’t exactly a genius — that’s why the straw man wanted a brain.

Likewise, it seems that most “straw purchasers” — people who buy guns for bad guys — have heads more full of hay matter than gray matter.

And so you have to wonder: Does York city really need a complicated new law to torch them?

That’s the question before the York City Council next week. Members are scheduled to vote on an ordinance requiring people to report lost or stolen guns within 72 hours after they discover them missing.

Maybe that seems like common sense — hardly the kind of thing you’d need a law for. Good citizens who have legally purchased firearms would be foolish not to call police if their guns are stolen. That’s just what you do when something gets stolen.

But should it be illegal to fail to do so? Should we run the risk of criminalizing people who, say, have a gun stolen, perhaps by “friends” or family members, who don’t even know their weapons are missing, if they fail to report the loss or theft?

Isn’t that a little like victimizing the victim?

Hopefully such common sense will be contagious.

[Via InYork.com]

York Daily Record: Lost & Stolen Gun law won’t scare scarecrows

One, it assumes that this law to ration gun ownership is effective at its stated purpose, which is to reduce illegal gun trafficking.  We know from other states that have passed it, that it has now been shown to do any such thing.  South Carolina had a long standing gun rationing scheme, which is repealed because there was no evidence that it was effective.  Multiple sales are already reported to the BATF and local law enforcement, so if these types of purchases are really a problem, more laws aren’t the solution.

The other mistake is to assume that passage of gun rationing in New Jersey is inevitable.  It is not.  You get a hint of that here:

That effort deserves the full support of lawmakers from South Jersey, including Senate Majority Leader Stephen Sweeney (D., Gloucester). But Sweeney is not yet on board with the proposal, and seems to be quoting from the NRA’s bullet points about the need to enforce existing gun regulations more fully.

This reveals the Inquirer’s true intention in publishing this editorial, which is to publicly shame Senator Sweeney into signing on to Bryan Miller’s gun rationing scheme.  The reason they have to do this is because they are coming up short on votes in the New Jersey State Senate to get this latest restriction on Second Amendment rights passed.  I would encourage everyone to send a note to Senator Sweeney to thank him for standing up for your rights.  If you’re a New Jersey resident, the critical time is now for contacting your Senators and State Assemblymen.

There is a very real chance of stopping a gun control bill in New Jersey.  Only a few years ago, Bryan Miller could ask the New Jersey legislature to jump, and they would ask “How High?”  Now they are starting to ask questions.  This is critical for both Pennsylvania and New Jersey residents.  For New Jersey residents, it’s the first step in reversing a long decline in gun rights that’s happened since 1968.  For Pennsylvanians, it’s a chance to ensure that Bryan Miller, and the full resources of the New Jersey Gun Control movement are tied up fighting in Trenton, rather than in Harrisburg.  We will both benefit from this win, but we must keep the pressure on.

One-Gun-a-Month in New Jersey

North Dakota has 0 gun murders in 2008, Brady Campaign group claims need for gun control

When the City Council passed and Mayor Nutter signed a package of gun-control bills that limits the ability of law-abiding citizens to purchase and possess firearms, they brazenly declared themselves independent from the laws of the commonwealth. It didn’t take long for the first suburb, Lower Chichester, to follow by unlawfully passing its own arbitrary gun-control laws.

Yet, what baffles me the most is that these leaders wonder where criminals get the idea that laws don’t apply to them! Don’t they see the example they set so publicly? The willful defiance has made headlines for weeks, reminding residents that the Council, mayor and police commissioner consider themselves to be above state law. Why shouldn’t average citizens be as well?

District Attorney Lynne Abraham understands the rule of law, as do many police officers, who have voiced opposition to enforcing these measures they know to be illegal. They have reason to be concerned. If they knowingly enforce laws that have been previously declared illegal, they may be found liable in lawsuits. Those are lawsuits that they don’t want to battle and the city can’t afford to fight.

However, not to be stopped by the city attorneys, who actually have to stand in front of judges and argue the validity of the laws, Police Commissioner Charles Ramsey is encouraging the Council and mayor to ignore the legal advice against enforcing the ordinances. He was recently quoted arguing in favor of the illegal measures that “as far as I am concerned, the laws are valid, and we will act as if this whole conversation with the D.A. just didn’t take place.”

When the chief law-enforcement officer so shamelessly encourages city leaders to pretend they didn’t hear legal advice from other officials, advice that could save thousands in taxpayer funds for litigation, it’s time to question if he really has the best interest of the city in mind.

Lawful gun owners are not the problem, and our city leaders know it. They are in a better position than most to see the justice system turning criminals out to the streets, rather than putting them in prison. To solve the crime problems in Philadelphia and in other communities, leaders must be willing to embrace the rule of law, not blatantly sacrifice it for political points.

Until our elected officials learn to abide by the law, we gun owners will have to set an example. In what is only the first of many steps, gun-owner groups have filed for a temporary restraining order to prevent enforcement of the Philadelphia gun-control ordinances. Those of us who live in the city will continue to lawfully keep and bear our arms, waiting on the city to follow our lead in respecting the laws and constitution of the commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

Philadelphia: Shameless example of disregarding law

The PATH Coalition, one of the Brady Campaign’s anti-gun Sock Puppet organizations has resorted to lying in order to further its agenda. While gun owners have long been used to misleading wording, carefully finessed statistics, and omissions of fact, it is always interesting to see outright, blatant lies. On their home page they state:

Under current law, a person can go into a gun shop and buy 10, 20, even 30 handguns without incident. The next day, they turn around and sell them on the street to anyone willing to pay cash- no questions asked!

Here’s a hint PATH: There is a government agency that will ask a whole lot of questions, it is called the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives and they would be very, very interested in such a situation, as would local law enforcement.

Here’s the real deal:

1. Federal law requires that all licensed firearm dealers report the transfer of more than one handgun to an individual within 5 consecutive business days to the BATFE via an BATFE Form 3310.4 (As a licensed dealer, must I advise ATF if I sell more than one handgun to an individual?) A submission of that form for the purchase of 30+ handguns at a time is going to raise some eyebrows at the ATF and most likely result in an investigation.
2. In Pennsylvania it is a third degree felony to illegally transfer a handgun to another individual without doing the transfer through a licensed firearms dealer who performs the necessary background checks.
3. At both the federal and state level it is a felony to knowingly provide a firearm to any person who is ineligible to possess one.
4. At both the federal and state level is is a felony to lie on firearm transfer forms, specifically about who the true purchaser of a firearm is.

With that said it should be obvious that anyone engaging in the activity suggested by PATH is guilty of multiple state and federal felonies which will all be investigated due to the purchase report sent to the BATFE. If the BATFE and local police do their job and actually enforce these laws, such straw purchasers could spend decades in jail rather than punishing the majority of responsible firearm owners for the actions of criminals.

If we must have this debate over firearms, the Pennsylvania Firearm Owners Association calls on The Brady Campaign, PATH, and all other organizations to do so with the facts, not with fabrications that simply scare people into making uninformed decisions. If an organization can not make its point with the truth, then one must seriously question the point they are trying to make.

PATH Coalition employs Lies, Deception to Further Their Anti-Gun Agenda