PA Bill Number: HB1725
Title: In inchoate crimes, prohibiting the possession of firearm at polling place.
Description: In inchoate crimes, prohibiting the possession of firearm at polling place. ...
Last Action Date: Jul 17, 2019
Firearms Preemption Meeting - 08/1/2019
Starlite Ballroom Social Hall (Fearless Fire Co) 1221 South Front Street, Allentown, PA
FOAC Monthly Meeting - 08/11/2019
South Fayette Township Municipal Building 515 Millers Run Road, Morgan, PA
Senator Jim Brewster's Annual 45th District Golf Classic - 08/19/2019
Youghiogheny Country Club 1901 Greenock Buena Vista Rd, McKeesport, PA
Editorial: California's tough gun laws to face US Supreme Court test :: 02/08/2019
California is seriously tough on gun safety, piling up 109 state restrictions and rules over the decades. Gov. Gavin Newsom came to office proclaiming he’ll enhance that record and eager gun control forces are urging him on with a batch of suggested bills.
But overshadowing this promising picture is another reality. After nearly a decade of silence on the topic, the U.S. Supreme Court is poised to rule on a gun control case with the only doubt being how far the new conservative majority will go in widening Second Amendment gun rights.
It’s an instance of opposite coasts and opposite approaches. California may be the toughest gun control state in the country with a political lineup ready to go even further. The high court, which sensed it didn’t have the votes for a change-making decision until the arrival of Justice Brett Kavanaugh, is ready to go the other way.
The looming clash could doom many of California’s landmark restrictions on ownership, gun designs and sales. But the Supreme Court could also temper its ruling as it has in the past by limiting the extent of gun rights.
Newsom campaigned for governor partly on his record as a prime supporter of Proposition 63, a measure that limited gun magazines, required background checks to buy ammunition, and fined owners who failed to report lost or stolen weapons. Though part of it is tied up in lawsuits, its passage has encouraged control-minded lawmakers to press other changes.
Former Arizona Rep. Gabby Giffords, a shooting victim, presided at a recent gathering of legislators backing a batch of stricter measures. They include a one-gun-a-month purchasing limit, rules on parts that can be used to make homemade guns, a 10-year ban on firearm possession for a repeat drug or alcohol offender, a lockup requirement for guns stored at home when the owner is away, and a gun sales tax to pay for violence prevention.
This gusher of ideas is because of the changeover in governors. Gov. Jerry Brown signed a wave of firearms restrictions, building California’s reputation as tough on guns. But he also vetoed measures that he thought went too far. Case in point: San Francisco Assemblyman Phil Ting, a Democrat, is retrying a bill rejected by Brown that would widen the circle of people who could petition to restrict gun access for a person considered dangerous.
The Supreme Court justices may want to listen to this surge in legislative concern. A wave of mass shootings is one aspect, but gun violence is a much bigger problem in a nation awash in some 300 million firearms.
Before the court is an obscure-sounding case from New York City. On appeal is a challenge to a law that limits gun owners to taking their firearms to ranges in the five boroughs only. Transporting the weapons outside the city is restricted for safety reasons, a justification upheld by lower courts.
Control groups are worried, predicting a possible ruling to allow open and concealed carrying of weapons without restrictions. The last major high court case in 2010 guaranteed the right to “possess a handgun in the home for the purpose of self-defense.’’ It left in place some gun restrictions, though.
The pending New York case could widen this stance, saying New York gun owners are free to take their guns anywhere, a ruling that would please pistol-packing gun rights groups. Or it could take a wider whack at gun restrictions, an outcome that would diminish California’s rightful concern for safety.
This commentary is from The Chronicle’s editorial board. We invite you to express your views in a letter to the editor. Please submit your letter via our online form: SFChronicle.com/letters.