Snowflakes in Hell

A guy gets pulled over for doing 85 in a 55, charged with reckless driving.  A few weeks later, his License to Carry is revoked by the Delaware County Sheriff.  Reasoning is the old “character and reputation” escape clause.   Is this an abuse of discretion?  Or a proper exercise of it?

My opinion is, if everything was as claimed, it’s not an appropriate use of that clause.  But I think this guy might not get his license back.  The Sheriff will no doubt argue that Reckless Driving is a serious summary offense, and is accompanied by a six months suspension of your license to drive a motor vehicle, and that being convicted of it exhibits a certain poor judgment that makes one a person who’s character makes him unsuitable to carry a firearm.

I think once we’re rid of Fast Eddie, revoking the “character and reputation” clause needs to be a priority.  Pennsylvania is supposed to be a shall issue state, but we’re not technically.  Sheriffs retain, and still use, considerable discretion on when to revoke or not issue licenses in Pennsylvania.  If the guy had a string of non-disqualfiying misdemeanors, I might not complain, but doing 85 in a 55 might technically be reckless driving, but I won’t tell you I’ve never done it.  It may be an indicator of bad judgment, but if it’s so bad that it should be disqualifying, why did the legislature choose to not include it in the list of disqualifying offenses?

Either way, I end up arguing in that thread about carrying Pennsylvania on a foreign reciprocal license if you’re a PA resident who’s had their LTC revoked.  Keep reading if you’re interested in that topic.  Keep in mind I’m no lawyer though, and the only lawyer who responded said he wouldn’t advise it.

…. but John Timoney can seriously go fuck himself. He apparently doesn’t take his oath to uphold the constitution of either his country or his state seriously at all, and he’s been peddling this stuff since he was busy screwing up Philadelphia’s police department and trying to crap on the constitutional rights of Pennsylvanians by arguing that the Pennsylvania constitution was no obstacle to the city of Philadelphia banning guns.

I’m sick of seeing that turd’s name attached to stories like this. Does anyone out there have a MythTV box? If so, do like Uncle said and get the best parts recorded. Preferably in high def. MythTV will encode in a format that can be more easily manipulated on a PC than a TiVO.

Last time Timoney and his buddies were pushing this nonsense we caught their lies red handed. Let’s do it again for ABC this time.

I can’t believe I missed this bit linked off the letters to the editor linked here:

What kind of nonsense is this that a person in Philadelphia can purchase even one gun a month? Police officers and innocent people are being murdered and wounded every day in Philadelphia. Why would civilians need to purchase more than one gun?

Damaris Martinez, Philadelphia

Of course, we’re told, when we suggest that “If they can ration to one a month, what’s to stop them from rationing to one a year? Or just one per person per lifetime?”,  “That’s crazy gun nut talk! No one wants to do that.” Bullshit!

Over at Red’s Trading Post, see some testimony by attorney Richard Gardiner from back when Congress was considering reigning in the ATF. You know, if the Democrats want to earn some good ju ju with gun owners, they could take this up again. Democrats are supposed to be for the little guy right? You don’t get much more “mom and pop” than most gun shops.

That demand for perfection is an impossible burden for anyone, including federal firearms licensees, to meet. If ATF continues to enforce the law in the current manner, few licensees will remain in business. Congress should make clear that licensees should only face serious penalties for serious, material violations that could result in sales to prohibited persons or that could impede legitimate investigations.

Apparently it’s a pretty tough standard for the ATF to meet too.

HB 1966, introduced a few weeks ago in the Pennsylvania General Assembly, would impose a 1% tax on firearms which will be used for a “Violence Reduction Fund”. The sponsors of the bill are the usual suspects. This one goes through the finance committee, and I’m not aware of the composition of that as far as the gun issue goes. It’s nothing to start worrying seriously about yet, but it does illustrate the mentally of the Philadelphia Politicians. Who is responsible for gun violence in Philadelphia? Certainly not the cretins who roam the streets committing crimes. Nope. It’s you and me, and we should have to pay the piper for purchasing evil guns.

Ahab talks about Canada’s attempt to get rid of their registry.  I’m less optimistic than he is about Canada.  Gun control is popular in Ontario and Quebec, which can outvote the western provinces.  I think the passion about gun control laws in Canada stems from a desire to be seen as different from the United States.  That’ll be a tough egg to crack for shooters in Canada.

Ace talks about Japan, which is tightening it’s laws.  I’m not sure how much tighter you can get than pretty much illegal already.

Apparently Australia’s new Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, is a shooter.

“Likewise, the federal Labor Party under the leadership of Kevin Rudd has signalled a closer, more understanding relationship with shooters.

“Mr Rudd is no stranger to the shooting range and has not shied away from the media about his support for the shooting sport.”

Kevin a gun lover, maybe even a gun toter?

The Howard years were not good for Aussie shooters.  Hopefully Rudd will be better to them.  Kind of strange that in Australia it could end up being Labor that’s friendly toward gun owners.

Jewell Williams tried to apologize for his “the yahoos win again” comment, but I have to agree with this guy that the real yahoos are in Philadelphia.

Days of our Trailers got an interesting Brady fundraising e-mail editorial by a Brady Board member:

We also need to get the message out that sensible gun laws work for all citizens, including those who own guns for hunting or self-protection. These legal gun owners need to join us to insist that the right to own firearms must be countered by sensible ownership protections. Without their support, we will never adequately address this issue, and the killing of our children will continue.

We need to work together, it’s for the children, after all. To me, they are adjusting their messaging in preparation for a likely defeat at the Supreme Court. The post Heller Brady line, assuming we prevail, will be “Of course it’s a right, but that doesn’t mean we can’t have sensible gun regulations.” Sensible gun regulations, like a total ban on functional firearms in cities. So to paraphrase “It’s an individual right, but that doesn’t mean anything!” will be the new Brady line post Heller, and we’ll continue to not take their crap about wanting to work together seriously.