What of the statutes listed is objectionable? They all seem perfectly reasonable and common-sense driven in a city plagued by gun violence. Law abiding citizens in Philadelphia can still buy and own guns. This in no way violates the second amendment by any interpretation. Something has to be done in Philly to stop the current trend. I applaud Mayor Nutter for his efforts - I think you put him in the wrong end of your hero/hack column. As for the state vs. city issue, local knows best; the good people of Elk county do not have the same lifestyle as the good people of Philadelphia or Pittsburg. That's only common sense. Its time more common sense is applied to the gun control debate.
"What of the statutes listed is objectionable?"
How about because they are all directed at legal gun owners, not those who are breaking the gun laws already on the books?
For instance, limiting legitimate handgun purchases to one per month is supposed to cut down on those guns being re-sold to felons or others who aren't supposed to own them, but does nothing to address those who are actually illegally dealing guns. Oh, and it makes it harder for me to buy that matching pair of pearl handled Colt .45s like Patton's.
And are they going to require all those drug dealers to report themselves if their illegally obtained guns are stolen by another drug dealer? "That's right, officer, and he also stole two pounds of weed from me."
We're not at war - you can wait a month to have your matching set if it's saving lives - most people who stockpile handguns aren't doing it to make pretty matching sets. Agreed, there should be harsher punishment for illegal gun owners, but these statues are still not bad. You can't assume that every gun used in crime is illegal. People with legal access to guns do commit gun crimes. If the gun market is monitored more closely, then there will be a better chance of finding illegal buyers and vendors and getting them off of the streets. Something has to be done; why not start with an ounce of non-extreme prevention?
Mike, what's not extreme about denying the law-abiding citizens of Philadelphia the Constitutional right to defend themselves, their families, and their property from violent criminals? The only part of this legislation that passes the smell test is revoking the rights of those under court-ordered protection from abuse, and even that should be case-by-case at the judge's discretion.
Yes, legally purchased guns are used in violent crimes, particularly crimes of passion, but the vast majority are carried out using illegally purchased or stolen guns.
Where does this legistlation deny people the rights you describe? Where? Placing reasonable limits on the rate of purchase in no way does this, nor does requring that missing guns are reported, nor does taking them away from abusers...if a handgun ban goes through, then we can talk about the meaning and intent of the second amendment. These measures don't even impose limits enough to warrant debate of that nature.
Commenting by HaloScan
