Snowflakes in Hell

John Street is holding a conference with other area mayors, talking about ways they can crap all over lawful gun owners in this commonwealth (and other states). I particularly like the headline here “Mayor Street Hosts Area Mayors for Anti-Gun-Violence Summit”. So does that mean the mayor would be happy if people were getting their skulls bashed in with baseball bats? The problem in Philadelphia is violence in general, not just the guns. But here’s where the irony comes in:

Mayor Street and about a dozen regional mayors were holding a daylong summit on Friday at the National Constitution Center on how to curb gun violence.

Emphasis mine. The National Constitution Center? Are you friggin kidding me? I think we have to remind the mayor of something. First federal, Amendment II:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Now the Pennsylvania Constitution, Art. 1, § 21:

The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

Emphases mine, just in case John Street thinks that part isn’t clear. But does Mayor Street get the irony of his venue?

Street wants the mayors to work for stricter gun laws — especially in Pennsylvania, whose gun laws Street called “lax.”

Nope.

Let me just clarify my position on Act 71. The way it stands now, I don’t think it’s acceptable, but I don’t want to go back to just making gambling flat out illegal, nor do I like the folks who are fighting it. The folks coming out against Act 71 are doing it because they think gambling is bad and immoral, at the root. I’m doing it, because I don’t appreciate Ed Rendell using legalized gambling to help line the pockets of his political cronies, and I’d like to see it being done differently so that’s there’s less government and less politics involved in the process.

I’ve never bought Ed Rendell’s justification for passing Act 71; that it’ll bring in enough revenue to offset other taxes. I have no problem with the state taxing gambling, or licensing establishments for gambling, provided the licensing requirements are objective and free from political influence of powerful people. But it was was about revenue for me. I would have been happy with a “because we’re not your fucking parents” justification for liberalizing the commonwealth’s gambling laws.

Via Ahab, comes a story of a man who gets arrested after confronting trespassers on his property while armed. I think charges are a bit harsh here, since the owner claims he wasn’t brandishing, but it’s a valuable lesson: Your gun doesn’t come out of your holster unless you intend, and are justified legally, to use deadly force against someone. Otherwise, keep it in your holster. The best way to deal with trespassers is to call the police.

I noticed that neither of my senators have signed on to this bill. I will have to write both of them to make sure it stays that way. In the mean time, I’ve sent this to Senator Hutchinson:

Dear Senator Hutchinson,

I am not a resident of Texas, but I believe your introduction of S.1001, to repeal the Washington D.C. gun ban, raises some issues of national impact with respect to the effect it could have on the Parker vs. DC case, that will likely come before the Supreme Court of the United States.

I do want to thank you for your support of our second amendment rights, and I appreciate the sentiment that went into your introduction of this bill, but I don’t want Congress’ repealing of the Washington DC gun ban to remove standing for the Parker plaintiffs, and render the case moot.

The time has come for the Supreme Court to speak on the second amendment. Many of us who are advocates for gun rights and the second amendment believe Parker is the case that has the best change of favorable review from The Court. While I appreciate the sentiment displayed in S.1001, I sincerely hope this bill will not advance until Supreme Court has had a chance to make a definitive ruling on the Washington D.C. gun ban.

Sincerely,

[Sebastian]
Langhorne, PA

I will e-mail something along those lines to my senators before the end of the day. I will also go bark up the NRA’s tree a bit to make sure they know I don’t want them screwing up the Parker case either. A lot of noise about getting rid of the D.C. gun ban coming from Congress will do us a huge favor when it comes time for court review, but in no way do we actually want anything like this to pass.

It’s relatively easy for me to get a Virginia Concealed Handgun Permit, especially since I’m spending a lot more time down there now.  I was thinking it would be good to have, so I’m good to carry in West Virginia, but I noticed they take resident licenses only.   How is it that states like West Virginia, Oregon, and Nevada lack good reciprocity?   It would seem to would be relatively easy to pass something there.

While I favor the legalization of slots within The Commonwealth, commonly referred to Act 71, I don’t really appreciate the fact that Ed Rendell seems to be using the act to pay off political favors:

Boyd Gaming Corp and its partners submitted an application to the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board late December 2005 to open a Slots Parlor and high-rise hotel on a 125 acre plot in Limerick, PA, just off the Sanatoga exit of Rte. 422 and adjacent to an outlet mall proposed by Chelsea Property Groups. A major partner to Boyd in this proposal is David Sweet, the former campaign manager for Gov. Rendell. The site for the proposed casino is not currently zoned for such a use.

Now, I don’t agree with the folks I linked to that Act 71 ought to be repealed. I think it needs some reform, but I do favor gambling being generally legal, so I think it’s a step in the right direction. The problem with the act is, there’s not enough protection to keep politicians like Governor Rendell from milking the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board for their own benefit.

My proposal would be getting the gaming control board out of the business of approving casinos. They should be licensed the same way liquor establishments are, and whether they ought to be approved for zoning left up to the local communities. I’d like to see the GLCB merely implementing regulations and taxes on gambling establishments as authorized by the state legislature. Anything more is going to invite cronyism.