The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State …
This is great news. The Senate Committee was most hostile. I’ve been unplugged enough I forgot to update everyone that there was going to be a vote. It passed 13-1 out of committee.
More importantly, there’s no Florida Loophole fix attached to the bill, for those who were insistent that the deal was in the works to do that.
Now it’s onto the Senate floor where hopefully this will gain quick passage and be off to Governor Corbett.
In fact, a women’s rights group loves women’s bodies so much that they believe clinics which provide services exclusively for women shouldn’t have any of the regulations applying to other outpatient facilities applied to them. Because safety and sanitation, those are things only men deserve, right?
Pardon me as I step away from the main topic of this blog and ponder an issue that baffles me as a modern women who actually does consider herself a feminist – at least one who doesn’t hate men.
I can’t fathom exactly how pro-choice groups oppose regulating abortion clinics as ambulatory surgical centers. While I understand their goal is to make abortion as accessible as possible, it is still a fairly major procedure that can have a long-term impact on the reproductive health of a woman. Shouldn’t they be in favor of making sure that such facilities have the same kind of oversight and safety requirements as similar medical centers that provide services for men?
I’m not even getting into the moral issue of abortion, this is a matter of looking at it strictly as a legal medical procedure – which it currently is right now. After the horrors in Philadelphia with agencies in dispute over who controls what in the process, why is there opposition to providing a clear regulation structure that can allow abortion clinics to remain open, but also require the same quality of treatment and safety conditions required for clinics that also serve the needs of men? Instead, a woman’s group calls on such equitable standards as a “public health crisis.”
Even beyond the question of whether abortion should be legal, the fact remains that it is legal. But I’m really shocked when proposals that ultimately do protect the lives and health of the women who seek abortions are actually opposed by women’s groups on the grounds that it will somehow cut off all access to the procedure. This isn’t a notification law, it’s not a mandate to get an ultrasound with a waiting period imposed afterwards, or any of the medically-dubious types of rules that many pro-life lawmakers try to push around the country. It’s regulating an abortion clinic for what it is – an outpatient surgical center.
I’m not a doctor, and I don’t play one on tv. I also don’t follow the abortion debate or politics very closely because it’s not an issue that’s ever going to change in any substantial manner. But, I am a woman. And when I hear groups that are supposedly all for equality getting their panties in a twist over regulating surgical services for women the same way that men’s medical services are treated, it doesn’t really add up on how this advances feminism if the current structure allowed a clinic that killed live babies and a woman. That seems very anti-woman to me.
Alerts from NRA and NSSF this week announced a public meeting of the Pennsylvania House Game and Fisheries Committee tomorrow to tackle the topic of ending the the blue law that bans Sunday hunting dating back to the 1870s.
The Sunday Hunting Coalition points out that Pennsylvania would see a significant economic boost from expanding the number of days hunters are allowed to take to the fields and woods.
The estimated impacts from a lift on the ban on Sunday hunting are based on responses to surveys of hunters in Pennsylvania and North Carolina. In these two states, government agencies conducted extensive surveys of hunters in which they were asked to report the number of additional days they would participate in hunting if the Sunday hunting ban were to be lifted. Based on these responses, it is estimated that hunters will participate in, on average, about 22 percent of the additional days made available to them from the lifting of the ban. In other words, if the lifting of restrictions increased the number of hunting days by 10, the average hunter would increase their hunting days by about two.
Specifically, Pennsylvania would likely see a direct economic impact that could create more than 4,400 jobs with wages topping $99 million. Of all the states with Sunday hunting bans or heavy restrictions, Pennsylvania stands to gain the most jobs and economic impact of a repeal of the prohibition.
So, you know, lawmakers who are so desperate for more money and want to be seen as “creating” jobs, this is your chance. Seriously, $99 million more in wages to tax and 4,400 new jobs. That’s just the direct impact, the indirect impact gives us even more jobs and higher wages.
(Similar post with a little more data & background over at PAGunRights.com.)
I will be the first to admit I’m relatively ignorant on the ins and outs of the science behind hydraulic fracturing, and its environmental impact, other than groking the overall basic concept. Generally speaking, I think it’s appropriate for government to regulate externalities, such as river or groundwater contamination caused by industrial processes, provided those regulations are based on science rather than hysteria.
However, I’m wondering how many of these people are going to voluntarily go without natural gas this winter. Speaking only for myself here, but I’m guessing I probably speak for many Pennsylvanians: I like not being cold. I also like hot showers. I’m open to listening to ideas about how natural gas drilling needs to be regulated, but these folks apparently want it stopped. I hate to tell these folks, but natural gas isn’t produced by farting unicorns.
So reports Capitol Ideas. Mensch was convicted of disorderly conduct for displaying a handgun to another motorist during a running confrontation down I-78. Mensch denies displaying the gun, claiming the driver mistook a cell phone for a gun. We have a photo of Senator Mensch’s cell phone, so you can see that it’s an easy mistake to make.
All kidding aside, we wish Senator Mensch good luck on his appeal.
I’m surprised to see this press release from State Senator Richard Alloway, containing a link to an interview I did. Senator Alloway is the sponsor of the Castle Doctrine bill in the Senate, and has been instrumental in trying to get this passed for us, and off to the Governor. On the long road to get this bill passed, there have certainly been a lot of rumors, allegations, and frustrations expressed along the way. Senator Alloway addresses many of these in his release, but I’ve noticed the current delay in passage is creating more rumors.
One of those rumors is that there is a deal in the works to pass Florida Loophole along with Castle Doctrine. I talked to NRA’s PA Lobbyist, John Hohenwarter, and asked if there was a deal to amend the Florida Loophole in exchange for moving Castle Doctrine. He assured me that there is no deal in the works, and Castle Doctrine should be able to pass clean.
I have mentioned previously that the Senate is a tougher landscape for pro-Second Amendment legislation than the House. It’s important that you call your State Senator and tell them you want Castle Doctrine passed. The more they hear from us the faster this can happen. Keep in mind that our opposition’s goal is to drag things out as much as possible, in the hope of exhausting us, and turning us against each other. Unfortunately, from what I’ve seen, there’s evidence that tactic is working. We can get Castle Doctrine, but only if we keep marching in the same direction.
It’s no secret that I hate Pennsylvania’s liquor sales system. It’s run by a state agency with a mission to make it as miserable as possible to purchase liquor. Now they are pitching pieces to argue that it’s not really any cheaper to buy liquor out-of-state.
The perception in Pennsylvania is that other states have better prices on wine and liquor, so it makes sense to stock up when you’re out of state. Maryland stores near the Pennsylvania line say they get plenty of customers from the Keystone State.
But a survey of liquor stores in four states conducted by The Patriot-News reveals that prices aren’t always better across the state line. In fact, in some cases, Pennsylvania prices are cheaper.
I have no idea how they selected the stores they did to compare prices, because my price comparisons have always saved money in New Jersey. Sometimes, I might only save a buck or two, but if I’m stocking up on several wines, each of those dollars saved will pay for the gas over there. In the meantime, I also have tremendous selection. If I’m lucky (and driving 10 miles out of my way), a state-run store in Pennsylvania will have a <$15 Bordeaux that I find okay. In New Jersey, I know exactly where I can grab a $9 bottle that rates as pretty damn good for a casual dinner wine. Consistency, selection, and prices combine to make the privately run out-of-state retailers a good choice. The PLCB, in defense of their existence, prefers to ignore all of those factors that make shopping everywhere a positive experience.
For the record, the paper really had to have gone to some crappy stores to find prices that are higher than Pennsylvania’s stores. To defend the monopoly, they found two examples of products that are sold $1 cheaper in Pennsylvania. But, on the privatization side, they found a bottle of scotch that sells for $12 less in Delaware. They also interview a woman who cites Massachusetts as the land of the free (liquor & wine) because wines that cost only $3 or $4 there are double those prices here.
The PLCB also likes to tout that they have more buying power than a private entity because they buy for the entire freakin’ state and can pass on the lower prices. In that case, why did the paper only find savings of $1 or $2 over the private stores where they did find a difference in prices? Why didn’t the reporter ask the PLCB to explain why they don’t have significantly lower prices for consumers if this buying power gets them such great deals? We know it can happen – look at Wal-Mart. When you’re a big buyer, you have some room to truly negotiate bigger savings. It would appear that the PLCB doesn’t exactly exert its big buyer status.
Something has gone horribly wrong with liquor & wine sales in this state when we look to states like New Jersey, Massachusetts, and even Hawaii for lower prices.
(h/t to Capitol Ideas & Commonwealth Foundation)
A local Bucks County resident by the name of Ken Richmond decided to challenge Bucks County Commissioners that their ordinance banning firearms in county parks ran contrary to state law. They agreed and repealed it. While these ordinances have been unlawful for at least twenty years, it good to get the blue laws off the books, regardless. I’m not surprised the Daily News managed to get a jab in by asking picnickers to avoid shooting the ants, as if anyone lawfully carrying a firearm is just a loose cannon waiting for the right excuse.
It’s the case that a lot of counties ban firearms in their parks, contrary to state laws which prohibit local governments and municipalities from regulating on this subject. I never recommended people obey these ordinances, because hey are illegal. In the event that anyone does somehow managed to get found out, and get a fine, it would be a relatively easy matter to challenge it and prevail. Preemption in this field is well established law in the Commonwealth, and the case law is pretty black and white.
The new Sheriff of Luzerne County is lowering the fee for License to Carry from $31 to $20. This is good news, because overcharging for LTCs has been a persistent problem among PA Sherrifs. It’s good at least one is doing something about it.
As much as I’d love to see Constitutional Carry happen in Pennsylvania, there are a few problems associated with getting it done. The chief problem, that I see, is that Senate Judiciary is headed by Stu Greenleaf, who only tends to be pro-gun when he really feels like it. In addition to Greenleaf, there are a number of other weak kneed Republican Senators who would make passage of such a bill problematic. Remember that last year, we did not have the votes on Judiciary to even keep the silly Florida Loophole amendment off HB40. There are ways around the committee, but they can be problematic avenues.
What makes Pennsylvania problematic for Constitutional Carry is that the southeast is becoming less pro-gun. The Democrats here are almost uniformly anti, and the Republicans are precarious enough they don’t want to stake out strong positions on contentious issues. If suburban legislators start voting along with their urban counterparts, it’s over for this issue, and there are a lot of suburban GOP legislators that don’t think there will be much pro-gun cover for their votes in this decidedly anti-gun media market. Just as an example, we tried to knock off Steve Santarsiero this past election by backing the campaign of Rob Ciervo, and failed by a few hundred votes. It’s tough to unseat even the anti-gun politicians around here, let alone unseat the softies. Without some more solid representation on the gun issue in the suburbs, I’m afraid Constitutional Carry is going to be a serious uphill battle in the Keystone State.