PA Bill Number: HB335
Title: In inchoate crimes, further providing for prohibited offensive weapons.
Description: In inchoate crimes, further providing for prohibited offensive weapons. ...
Last Action: Re-committed to APPROPRIATIONS
Last Action Date: May 6, 2024
Gun laws aimed at the good guys :: 07/22/2015
In response to Washington Post columnist E.J Dionne's column, "What about the right not to bear arms?" June 28, page C4:
The Second Amendment gives me the right to own a firearm and carry such with me for the protection of my family, my home and my business as long as I follow the laws imposed upon me by my state of residence. This is just as important a right as the other Amendments provide to us in our Constitution, and it has been under attack for quite a few years now. I wonder why that is?
E.J. Dionne would like to see a national effort to change popular attitudes toward gun ownership but has he given serious thought about the ramifications of a change like this? He is looking for a national effort to require background checks for gun sales but this is still a State by State issue. In Massachusetts where I live and have a license to carry a firearm, we do have a background check which is required for each and every purchase. If this is the way he wants it done, on a National level, then let's make my right to carry reciprocal to all other States just like my driver's license so if I should inadvertently cross over into Connecticut, I would not place myself in legal jeopardy.
As for what he considers the Washington Obstruction Machine, there is more of that going on than I can list on this page but let's list just a few such as the supporters of the Affordable Care Act, the attack on Religion by the left, the refusal of the IRS to produce damaging information that has caused so much harm to so many at such a high cost. Please stop the rhetoric of trying to lambast the NRA especially when you are looking for an offensive against health and safety. There are so many other obstructionists you could complain about.
Monsieur Guy Molyneux should look more into the problems that have arisen in the past 40 to 50 years by Progressive thought and motivation. I am one of those who would most likely be considered to be offensive to Guy since I certainly do have a firearm in my home for my protection. Dionne states that two thirds of the deaths in this country are from suicides and that could be true although I find that number to be a bit excessive. If not by gun, a person bent on suicide will find another ways such as drugs and some have gone as far as to become "victims" of suicide by cop. Has Dionne ever considered that the increase in crime in this country can be traced back to the Progressive insistence to eliminate all of the mental hospitals and let those people fend for themselves on the streets?
Now let us get to the reasons for owning a weapon. In my State and near my home there is a town where I was raised that has many areas that are plagued with shootings almost on a daily basis. Most of us do our best to avoid these areas because of the gangs and drugs. It isn't quite as serious as New York or Chicago but still a danger to someone such as myself who, at times, has to go into those area for business purposes. I am older, white hair, wear a suit and drive a nice car –I am a target, but I have a job to do. We have had several instances of armed robberies of several business and a bank in my area, so should I leave my staff unprotected? I don't think so!
There was an incident regarding Mark Vaughan who is a business owner in Oklahoma. Using his AR-15 that was in his truck he shot an attacker who had beheaded a woman and was attacking another. Should he have just minded his own business and left the scene. I don't think so!
The States where the least violence is occurring are those where the gun regulation laws there are minimal. How could that be explained? Are the States of Alaska, Arizona, Kansas, Vermont and Wyoming wrong in not requiring even a permit along with 26 States that broadly recognize the right to carry handguns openly even without a permit. Recently, Mississippi governor Bryant expanded the right to keep and bear arms in his State, reduced permit fees, allowed permit-less concealed-carry in purses and briefcases and even streamlined enhanced carry training requirements for active military and veterans, but are Mr. Dionne and Molyneux on the right track, I don't think so!
In Massachusetts we had a law passed in April of 1975 called the Fox /Bartley Act wherein if someone was convicted of being in possession of an illegal firearm, a 1 year minimum sentence would be imposed. Sad to say, thanks to liberal judges and prosecutors, there has been a rarity in the use of this provision because some thought that it went too far. The sentences are reduced to avoid incarcerations so they just return to the streets to by another illegal gun.
From an opinion piece in the Orlando Sentinel & Enterprise: "Gun laws are aimed at the good guys, the law-abiding people, like you and me. The bad guys ignore the law and get all the guns they want." Has anyone ever placed a sincere effort of going after the gang members who are becoming more of a problem every day, and no one seems to be able to find a way to get the guns away from them? I can't seem to get an answer as to why not. We read about the "mentally insane" person who was responsible for multiple deaths but he got a gun somewhere, somehow. How about going after the cause, illegal sale of guns.
An acquaintance had suggested that I should be obligated to put up a sign on my home and business warning others that I own a gun. My response was that I would be quite willing to do that if he would put up a sign saying the he did not have a gun. "The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to have a good guy with a gun", and that was indeed a statement from the NRA.
Dionne certainly does have the Right Not to Bear Arms if that is how he feels and it would be right for him and his family. I wouldn't think of forcing anyone to buy a gun. On the other hand, I keep a gun in my possession because the police response time, even in a small town such as ours is too long to protect us. When seconds count, the police are only minutes away. By then, without self-protection, the best that can be expected is that the coroner take good care of my remains.
On the other hand, my response time to a break-in at my home or business would be seconds.
Rejean J. Remillard
http://www.masslive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2015/07/the_good_guys_are_target_of_gu.html
