The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State …
I’m outraged that this gun buyback program is getting state funding:
The program was partly funded through the state’s Weed and Seed anti-crime initiative with matching funds paid by the city and assistance from the Hopewell Giant Eagle, Pallante said.
Here’s the state FAQ on the program. I think we need to get legislators to alter the Weed & Seed program to prevent money being used to buy back and destroy guns.
Good news. Now it has to pass the Senate, even though the Senate already passed a version of this. Hopefully Perry and Alloway can cooperate on credit. Both deserve it. I don’t want to see this being delayed any more.
Since it’s passage is largely inevitable, we’re probably going to be delayed a bit why everyone tries to get their due credit for getting the legislation passed. I’m generally fine with this, as long as it gets done. Some of our friends in the legislature who have gone out on a limb for this bill shouldn’t feel shut out of the final passage.
While working on a Pennsylvania-version of news from NRA-ILA about the national reciprocity bill, imagine my surprise when I found some key names left off of the sponsors list. These are the members of the Pennsylvania congressional delegation who support the bill:
These are the members of the Pennsylvania congressional delegation who sought & received NRA’s endorsement in 2010 against anti-gun opponents who are not on that list:
These are the members of the Pennsylvania congressional delegation who sought NRA’s endorsement in 2010 and received high grades while running against a friendly incumbent, but who have not stepped up to support gun owners on this issue:
Notice a trend with the party affiliation of those who wanted our support for the election, but who aren’t even sponsoring a bill for us? Every single one of the pro-gun Democrats who survived the 2010 elections has come through. Only half of the Republicans with previous endorsements and high grades have been willing to lend their names to the cause.
This employee over at Point Park University seems to think it would be just awful if we were to pass campus carry in Pennsylvania, as other states are currently debating. Hate to tell you prof, but there’s no such crime as carrying a firearm on a university campus in Pennsylvania, provided you have an LTC. The worst that can happen is the school can ask you to leave (permanently, if you’re a student). This issue has not been pressing in this Commonwealth, because unlike the other states where this is being debated, carry on college campuses isn’t criminalized. If we were to have such a bill here, it would only be a matter of disallowing state funded universities from having such a policy prohibiting guns on campus.
SayUncle in Tennessee seems to share some of my anxiety about GOP prospects in 2012. He speaks of the national race, but any national race starts in the states, and Pennsylvania, as the nation’s 6th largest state, is a good example of that problem.
Bitter and I were speaking yesterday afternoon about the dire situation represented by the GOP bench headed into the 2012 elections. Ignoring the fact this article is mostly about how Tom Corbett is getting into trouble with our commonwealth’s schizophrenic voters (who want pet programs, a balanced budget and reasonable taxes), it shows something important about Bob Casey:
U.S. Sen. Bob Casey Jr., D-Scranton, enters his campaign next year for a second term with what Lee called a limited base of support. Thirty-two percent of voters said he deserves re-election, compared with 43 percent who told pollsters it’s time for someone new.
Pennsylvania is generally accepted as a purple-hued blue state. After 2010, we have one conservative Republican Senator in the form of Pat Toomey, who I’d like to think is all of Rick Santorum’s fiscal conservatism, without the paranoia about what the queers are doing to the soil. Could we have two? Traditionally, there’s been Arlen Spector for those who wanted to vote GOP without really doing so. But we don’t have Arlen Specter to kick around anymore.
Who is the GOP going to put up against Bob Casey? Tom Ridge is about the only candidate who comes to mind. Only because he’s is well known and a well liked former governor. His name was floated his name in 2010 to run against Specter. Ridge carries the stench of having carried Bush’s homeland security agenda for longer than is healthy for average mortals. That’s not even mentioning Ridge isn’t really a conservative on important issues, much like his spendy former boss. Besides, rumor has it that Ridge is now a Marylander, and couldn’t run even if he was interested the Pennsylvania Senate race.
Who else? Curt Weldon was driven out of Congress on questionable accusations of corruption in 2006. Maybe he’d like to make a comeback. But let’s face it, we are sending him to Libya right now because every hostage taker worth his salt will only abduct someone that someone else wants back. That probably isn’t Curt. I think Weldon is well done at this point. He’s not coming back for a statewide race.
Jim Gerlach certainly wants a state-wide seat, but after dropping out of the primary for the 2010 Governor race, I think he needs to stay right where he is. Otherwise I’m not confident his 6th district seat will stay in GOP hands without some gerrymandering magic. Gerlach is a poster boy for the fact that there are few GOP Congressional seats safe enough in Pennsylvania that can surely be held in an open race.
Who else does the GOP have with solid statewide name recognition? I really can’t think of anyone. But then, why did Bob Casey Jr. win the 2006 election? Maybe because Santorum was getting gay sex acts named after him, and Bob Casey Jr. happened to be the son of this Bob Casey. This problem also cuts both ways. To make the point, do Democrats want to run Onorato, “Dan Onorato,” again for anything? That was your bench against Corbett.
Pennsylvania is legitimately up for grabs, for either party. But don’t anyone get too excited. Neither party is much in a position to exploit it. Perhaps that is good for our Commonwealth in the long run, because I’ve never been convinced of the benefits of single party rule, no matter what that party is.
They want to ban guns in parks, or rather continue to ban guns in parks. They are weaseling around the preemption language by dishonestly arguing that application of such ban is not a law “inconsistent with the laws of this commonwealth,” quoting from our preemption statute, and is therefore not preempted.
It approved sending a resolution to the Central District meeting of the Pennsylvania League of Cities and Municipalities later this month, requesting it support legislation prohibiting firearms in municipal parks and buildings, treating them like courtrooms and schools under state law.
Got that? Because the state bans guns in courthouses and schools, it’s consistent for towns to then ban guns in their own buildings. Additionally, because hunting regulations don’t allow discharge in certain zones in parks, banning all firearms period in any municipal park is consistent with state law.
This is delusional legal thinking. This issue needs to be pressed. Let them enforce it, and then sue them. This is well established in this Commonwealth that only the state legislature may regulate guns.
Several of the candidates mentioned in this article would be a disaster for us. Dan McCaffery has the backing of Bob Brady, meaning he’s cozy with the Philadelphia political machine who are no friends of ours. Lynne Abraham was not friendly to gun rights during her tenure as District Attorney for the City of Philadelphia, and Patrick Murphy’s gun control credentials have been well documented here.
The only unknown is Kathleen Granhan Kane, who was a prosecutor in Clarks Summit, near Scranton. I have no idea what her position is on Second Amendment issues. Considering how high profile the Attorney General is, and the amount of policy under that office’s control, it’s important that we keep that in pro-2A hands. So far the Democratic contenders do not impress me. We’re fortunate that since the Attorney General has been subject to popular election (by the Attorney General Act in 1980) that office has never been held by a Democrat. But we should not take anything for granted. The office is too important.
It looks like the GOP might not get greedy in the redistricting process for Pennsylvania. That’s a good thing. When they tried it 10 years ago, the Democrat who was supposed to lose his seat in a “safe” GOP district with an incumbent managed to hang on. And he’s still there. That’s a lesson the party folks needed to learn since the GOP has control of the House, Senate, and Governor’s office.
Politico reports that they believe the redistricting process will rework PA-4 & PA-12 – Jason Altmire & Mark Critz (used to be John Murtha’s district). On the gun issue, it’s a not really a loss. Both are good on the gun votes. On one hand, we lose one pro-gun Democrat in the process, but we would likely lose one anyway if they tried to merge any of the seats with the anti-gun Rep. Mike Doyle in PA-14. It also makes the most sense since that is the corner of the state that is actually losing population – not “not gaining as rapidly” as is the case in most lose-a-seat scenarios, but actually losing.
They are also talking about creating a very long district for PA-17 to include Scranton. It would tighten up the Democratic seat, but give a chance to make Lou Barletta in PA-11 a little more safe. The downside for gun owners is that it sets up a potential primary challenge to pro-gun Democrat Tim Holden by an extremely anti-gun Scranton mayor.
Here in our little corner of the world, they don’t seem to want to pit two Philly Dems against each other. It makes sense given the population numbers. It does appear, according to Politico, that they will dump the heavily Democratic neighborhoods from our district, as well as PA-7 and PA-6 – Pat Meehan & Jim Gerlach. That would be very handy, indeed.
And for any Iowans, get ready for your big day tomorrow!
One of my first stops when I wake up each morning is Capitol Ideas. Why? Because John Micek provides a take on state government that frequently makes me laugh while simultaneously leaves me wanting to bang my head against a wall wondering what the hell we are doing. Take this bit:
We Are Reliably Informed …
… that Lt. Gov. Jim Cawley is off to Washington D.C. today for some kind of national conference for lieutenant governors.
What do you suppose they talk about at events like this? We can only imagine the agenda …
9:30 a.m: The Governor’s Pulse, Where It Is. How To Check It.
11 a.m: Lunch, It Really Can Last Three Hours.
11:30 a.m.-2:30 p.m.: Lunch
2:30 p.m.-3:30 p.m: The Value Of Learning A Trade (participants may choose from workshops on welding, needlework and foodservice).
4 p.m.: Dismissal and Happy Hour.
To be fair to Lt. Gov. Cawley, Micek did leave off the Group Photo Session scheduled between 12-12:10pm. He also missed the fact that the Happy Hours are with the Canadians & Irish. But don’t believe that they won’t be tackling at least some of the big issues of the day. Check out this list of resolutions they plan to tackle:
I don’t know if Pennsylvania even has corporal punishment in schools, but that could be somewhat interesting. We had sexist corporal punishment in my high school. When boys got in trouble, they could be paddled or take detention. Girls could only take detention. I wish I had gotten in enough trouble to warrant punishment so I could have sued them. For the record, I’m in no way opposed to corporal punishment. In this day and age, it should really be an option as opposed to a default punishment.