Suburban Philly Lawmaker Launches New Anti-Gun Group

We reported in December that Pennsylvania State Representative Steve Santarsiero announced plans to introduce a bill that would ban possession of semi-automatic rifles in Pennsylvania. He said that proposed federal bills that would merely ban future firearms were not draconian enough, and that the continued possession of these commonly owned firearms was “a considerable loophole that we here in Pennsylvania should and, indeed, must close.”

Now, Rep. Santarsiero has announced a new anti-gun organization for Bucks County. He calls the group “Bucks Safe,” and their mission says that a key policy initiative is to “draw a clear line in the sand between the weapons and ammunition that have a lawful place in our society and those that do not.”

If you live in Rep. Santarsiero’s district in Bucks County, now is the time to speak out against his proposed gun ban. Let him know that these firearms are some of the most commonly owned and used guns available today for every lawful use from home defense to competition. If you live elsewhere in Bucks County, make sure to contact your local lawmakers to let them know that real voters are supporting the Second Amendment. There’s no doubt he’ll use the organization to try and pressure other area lawmakers to jump on board with gun control.

Related posts (automatically generated):

  1. Making the Gun Confiscators Upset
  2. New Local Anti-Gun Groups
  3. Letter to a Local State Representative

14 thoughts on “Suburban Philly Lawmaker Launches New Anti-Gun Group”

  2. Is this guy part of the People’s Liberation Front of Judea, or a spinoff, the Judean People’s Liberation Front? I can’t see how much further the left can go on banning guns without sounding more and more irrational.

  3. Did Rep. Santarsiero found this organization, or is he officially affiliated with them? If so, is it even legal for a sitting legislator to do so during his term? At the very least, I would consider this a conflict of interest, having to serve the needs of his constituents and the organization at the same time.

    1. Yes, it is legal. In fact, I would argue that I applaud legislators who engages in civil society. It means they may be less likely to try and destroy it.

      1. Is an organization whose sole purpose is to criminalize your inalienable rights part of civil society?

    2. Yes, it is legal.

      Daryl Metcalfe founded a national anti-immigrant group while in office.

    3. I can’t imagine how it can be illegal. To do so would violate First Amendment rights in two ways, by limiting free speech, and by limiting free association with those who agree with you. Even Congresscritters have the right to try to gin up support for legislation they wish to push!

  4. “Bucks Safe” huh? Has that “Ceasefire Chicago” ring to it. Let us know how that catchy phrase works out for you.

  5. Any chance some of us who do not have a past or present high-profile identity could infiltrate the group?

    A friend of mine elsewhere in the state had his wife, who had no identity as an activist of any sort, infiltrate the Million Moms back in the day. The intelligence was priceless to one of our operations.

  6. Someone might want to point out to him (and the local media) that under Heller a blanket semi-auto ban will never, ever survive a Supreme Court challenge, and thus he’ll be wasting millions of dollars in State money, wasting lots of police and private time and property, all to get smacked down by the Supreme Court.

    Makes me wonder whether he’s incompetently ignorant or very competent at merely posturing…

    1. If Obama appoints another 2 justices replacing the Heller and MacDonald majority of 5 “never, ever” might happen a lot sooner than you think.

Comments are closed.