In lieu of the latest police officer murder, Mayor Nutter is pushing for a ban on "assault weapons".

As an LEO things like this are on our minds, none of us want to die. But at the same time, we know that these bans do nothing to help us out.

The person that killed Sgt. Liczbinski could not even legally own a firearm as he is a felon. So why do they believe that another assault weapon ban will help?

Answer it won't. It can't.

In wake of Liczbinski slaying, a push for assault-weapon ban | Philadelphia Daily News | 05/08/2008

Maybe instead of making new bans, they could allow us to do our jobs and focus on the criminals instead of honest people.

The system seems unable to enforce current laws, making more is not the answer.

__________________
It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.

Voltaire

We could if we were funded, and allowed to.

We should all know by now that criminals are going to get guns. We can go after them, but we need the manpower, equipment, and backing to do so.

Unfortunately, this is more expensive than simply making another law. Politicians have a hard time looking at the long term. Allowing us to do our jobs would be a long term investment. They do not like those.

I know that police will always be necessary, but I think one way to reduce crime would be to invest more in education and less in foreign wars/aid (in order to have enough money for education).

It would be hugely expensive to hire enough police to actually deter crime. The main role of police should be to process and help incapacitate serious criminals. I think everybody should have the right to own a gun, even a felon. If we're going to prevent people from having guns, it should not be felons in general, but maybe violent felons or felons who committed a crime with a gun. Even then I'm not sure if it would help to disallow them from legally owning a gun. Laws against gun ownership exacerbate the problem that innocent people are often unarmed and criminals will have guns no matter what we do. Universal gun ownership would reduce crime. Police can't be everywhere, but citizens with guns can be nearly everywhere.

Early intervention has shown some serious promise. This I will agree on.


I agree partly. And I will get back to this later.

I do agree that a good number of people that are not allowed to own, should be allowed to own. But know that 68% of gun related murders are committed by 5% of criminals.

That 5% being those with prior records that built their way up, and started out small.

I agree that putting weapons in the hands of the free would dissuade the bound from using them as freely. But you would have to define free.

Very few people change their ways. So simply giving them to those who have done their time does not make much sense.

Police are a deterrent, and we can not be everywhere. It is up to the citizen to defend themselves. But criminals gave up their right to self defense when they chose a life of crime.

Maybe something else could work.

Say you got into trouble that would preclude you from owning. You do your time, and after a set amount of time, you have not gotten into trouble again. Then you could own again.

I could live with that. But allowing someone to own straight out of prison does not make sense.

I also seriously believe that the amendment needs to be amended so restricting ownership among criminals is not unconstitutional.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keno In lieu of the latest police officer murder, Mayor Nutter is pushing for a ban on "assault weapons".

I live in Philly and the crap Nutter is pulling is criminal.

The entire situation in Philly regarding guns is surreal; Nutter blaming the NRA and saying the NRA owes Sgt Liczbinski's family an apology is just the last act in a ridiculous series of acts and utterances from him.

I'll offer some backstory if your interested.

Philadelphia has been slapped down repeatedly for enacting its own gun laws. There is a state preemption statute and PA has a state constitutional provision that unambiguously declares the citizen's right to arms is an individual right.

Art I, §21; "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned"

The preemptive law is written in the PA Criminal Code in the Uniform Firearms Act, it says:

18 Pa. Crim. Stat. §6120(a) -- "General rule. No county, municipality or township may in any manner regulate the lawful ownership, possession, transfer or transportation of firearms, ammunition or ammuni*tion components when carried or transported for purposes not prohibited by the laws of this commonwealth."

The last time Philly tried to write its own laws the case went all the way to the PA Supreme Court. In 1996 the court said:

"Because the ownership of firearms is constitutionally protected, its regulation is a matter of statewide concern. The constitution does not provide that the right to bear arms shall not be questioned in any part of the commonwealth except Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, where it may be abridged at will, but that it shall not be questioned in any part of the commonwealth. Thus, regulation of firearms is a matter of concern in all of Pennsylvania, not merely in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, and the General Assembly, not city councils, is the proper forum for the imposition of such regulation.” -- Ortiz v. Commonwealth

Fast forward a bit and with Philly murders being what they are (406 in '06, 397 in '07) local Philly government has been begging the state legislature to enact a slew of gun control measures. But, Pennsylvania being what it is, "Philly and Pittsburgh on each end, Kentucky in the middle" nothing was done on the state level.

Of course this inaction of rural lawmakers is decried as their being in the gun lobby's pocket . . . not that they are doing what THEIR constituents want and honoring the constitution and laws of the state, no that can't be it . . .

Fast forward again to last month and the city has again acted on its own. City Council ratified 5 new laws; an assault weapons ban, one gun a month, ammunition registration, disarming those who might be a danger, reporting lost or stolen firearms and seizure of guns from those under a protection from abuse order. . . . and Mayor Nutter promptly signed them into "law."

The NRA filed for an injunction to stop the new laws from taking effect and they won. Almost simultaneously, in a stunning move, the sitting District Attorney, who has never read a gun control law she didn't love, actually came out and said that the laws were illegal on their face as well as unconstitutional and she would not prosecute anyone arrested for violating those laws.

The murder of a police officer by a felon in possession of an SKS reignited the fire in Nutter's britches and he has not forfeited a second of available face time on TV to argue his gun control agenda.

In truth, the real purpose of enacting these laws is not to actually have these particular laws enforced; it is to have them challenged and have the issue brought back before the PA Supreme Court.

In Pennsylvania we elect our judges, even those that sit on the Supreme Court and with the Democrats overwhelmingly being swept into office in the last election (including in the judiciary) the hope of Philly's City Council and Mayor is that the new left leaning judges will "re-interpret" the constitution, remold the preemption statute, overturn Ortiz and "give" Philadelphia the power to enact its own gun control laws.

If that happens then all bets are off.

Here are some more news items in chronological order. . .

Nutter defiantly signs five gun laws | Philadelphia Inquirer | 04/11/2008

D.A. says she cannot enforce Philadelphia's new gun laws | Philadelphia Inquirer | 04/16/2008

NRA to seek injunction against Phila. gun-control laws | Philadelphia Inquirer | 04/17/2008

Judge blocks city’s new gun laws | Philadelphia Inquirer | 04/17/2008

NRA, fighting gun laws, calls for Nutter's arrest | Philadelphia Inquirer | 04/18/2008

Hearing on Philadelphia's gun-control laws postponed | Philadelphia Inquirer | 04/26/2008

Nutter: NRA should apologize to slain cop's family | Philadelphia Daily News | 05/06/2008

Officer's death reignites fuse on gun-control debate | Philadelphia Daily News | 05/06/2008

Phila. leaders urge new U.S. assault-gun ban | Philadelphia Inquirer | 05/09/2008

Nutter, Rendell want assault-weapons ban | Philadelphia Daily News | 05/09/2008

lol. are people in the US allowed to own a ak47? how does that protect you?

Yup. I have a friend in Missouri who owns AK-47s, AR-15s, .50 cal muzzle-loader black powder , .45s, .22s....The list goes on. He just keeps them for collection , and he lives out in the boonies. It doesn't protect you really, but his 30-30 is a good deer hunting rifle

I was always curious as to what would happen in a scenario where no good man owns guns but all the criminals do.

Criminal field day?

Laws don't keep guns out of criminals hands. Banning them will only increase the price and create a new market for criminals sounds like a good retirement plan.

However, we can all see that the law against illegal drugs have kept them out of the US so...