PA Bill Number: HB829
Title: In preliminary provisions, further providing for definitions;
Description: An Act amending the act of April 12, 1951 (P.L.90, No.21), known as the Liquor Code, in preliminary provisions, further providing for definitions;
Last Action: Signed in House
Last Action Date: Jul 3, 2024
Consider the ramifications of gun laws :: 05/04/2019
The debate over firearm rights and restrictions always seems to revolve (pardon the pun) around the words “common sense” when there is nothing common or sensible about some of the suggestions made.
For instance: One doctor, having seen his fair — or unfair — share of bullet wounds in an emergency department, bemoans the idea that we cannot write laws to “keep firearms out of the hands of those that will do harm.” Pray tell me, how are we to forecast the future?
Yes, we can write laws that forbid those in mental institutions or those deemed threats to society from owning firearms. But only one or two of the mass-casualty events that have happened over the past 25 years have been by persons not allowed to own them. Either the person was without an arrest record, without a trespass or other warning to avoid certain other people, was a minor, or could easily obtain weapons that were legally owned by family or friends.
How can we pre-judge those that might behave badly with a gun? How, without violating the basic rights to privacy, self-defense, unreasonable search and seizure of property, or detention — without cause?
In one — one — case, a former soldier was flagged for being violent and was to be detained. He managed to evade capture and killed people anyway. Another former soldier decided to kill cops. Should we forbid former soldiers from owning a firearm? Should we forbid the public the right to purchase fertilizer? Cars? Tools?
We simply cannot foresee the possible actions of anyone.
The Rifleman, a magazine for members of the NRA, yes, the hated NRA, has an open column each issue of news reports submitted by members or readers. They fill a page with an abridged collection of new ones every month. They relate incidents where people or property were saved, crimes stopped, by firearms owners. They have statistics, which the U.S. justice system can easily verify, that tally up to 2 million times — per year — of weapons used by lawful owners of firearms , most with no shots fired, where the perpetrators were stopped, or apprehended. Some perpetrators were killed. Do you want to tell those lawful citizens that they should have just let the criminals take whatever they wanted?
There is a hackneyed saying: “When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.” I got news for you: It has been around a long time because it is true.
Appeasement doesn’t work against dictators. It doesn’t work with criminals, either.
We are the free citizens of the USA. It is our constitutional right to defend ourselves and others in need. We have the responsibility to act, and use force, very carefully, and only under provocation. Those whom have renounced this option do so without any diminishment of their rights.
Any laws that further restrict the rights of citizens had best be made very carefully, with consideration of all ramifications. No one wants to see a victim of domestic violence killed because they could not obtain a firearm for self-defense, should she/he find the courage to learn to use one.
https://www.fosters.com/news/20190502/consider-ramifications-of-gun-laws
