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: Removed from table

Last Action Date: May 1, 2024

more >>

More events

'Meeting in middle' on guns depends upon where the 'middle' is :: 07/07/2015

Yesterday longshot Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), appearing on CNN’s “State of the Union,” was widely quoted on his contention that he could “bring us to the middle” about gun rights versus gun control.

But in the firearms community, that depends upon just where Sanders and self-appointed “progressives” such as front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton think the “middle” happens to be. For gun control proponents, including Clinton – who was quoted by Politico telling a crowd at Dartmouth College last week that “We have to take on the gun lobby one more time” – the “middle” is often somewhere between total registration, licensing and one-gun-a-month schemes, and a total ban on private gun ownership.

Sanders reflected what a lot of gun owners believe, that “Folks who do not like guns are fine. But we have millions of gun owners in this country who are law-abiding citizens.” He talked of a “cultural divide” that the late Charlton Heston also discussed when he was president of the National Rifle Association. And the senator also said “We need a sensible debate about gun control that overcomes the cultural divide in this country.”

How about this as a starting point for such a debate: The Second Amendment means what it says, that individual citizens have a right to keep and bear arms, that this right extends beyond the front porch and that it shall not be infringed. If there must be licenses to carry, they must be recognized everywhere, regardless of state boundaries, and people should not have to provide a "need" to get one.

Balance that against swift, certain and harsh punishment for committing a violent crime with a gun (i.e. murder, armed robbery, rape or aggravated assault). Toss in penalties for misbehavior with a gun (i.e. illegal discharge, property destruction or intimidation.) Crack down on perps, and leave law-abiding gun owners alone.

Over the holiday weekend in Chicago, according to WMAQ, the local NBC affiliate, 46 people were wounded and nine people, including a 7-year-old boy, were fatally shot. Find the people responsible and hold them accountable. People do not take the law seriously if punishment is a sham.

Bans on specific classes of firearms cannot be part of any discussion. Don’t like semi-auto black rifles or handguns of any kind? Don’t own one, but don’t object if the guy across the street owns several. Sanders told CNN's Jake Tapper that he voted for a ban on so-called "semi-automatic assault weapons."

Background checks? There should be no records kept. And for starters, forms for such checks should not include information about someone’s race or ethnicity. Some might argue that such forms also not include details about the make, model or serial number of the gun, either. Sanders said he voted for the instant background check.

Nobody in the shooting community has a problem with others who don’t care to own firearms. They do object when this dislike for guns – known as “hoplophobia” in shooting circles – translates to a push for restrictive gun control.

Sanders, according to WCAX, observed, “If somebody has a gun and it falls into the hands of a murderer and the murderer kills somebody with a gun, do you hold the gun manufacturer responsible? Not any more than you would hold a hammer company responsible if somebody beats somebody over the head with a hammer.”

The Hill noted that Sanders “values guns for hunting and sports.” What about self-defense? Where does Sanders come down on that prickly question? Crimes against persons are typically committed away from home.

Sanders is right about a sensible debate. But gun control proponents must bring something to the table beyond a demand that gun owners give something up in exchange for that ever-elusive “peace of mind.”

This “middle” to which Sanders refers may exist, but not where anti-gunners think it should be. Sanders wants to discuss an issue involving a civil right, not a social privilege. That right must be treated with the same respect as all the other civil rights. If that’s not part of the scenario, then any talking will be so much noise in the wind.