Rendell calls bid to curb guns in Pennsylvania ‘a lost cause’

[RamboLiberal]

HARRISBURG - For eight years, Gov. Rendell has lobbied hard in the halls of the Capitol for what he calls "commonsense" handgun laws.

He wanted to limit sales to individuals to one handgun a month. He wanted owners to report lost or stolen weapons. He wanted to close a loophole in state law that he believes lets criminals use gun permits obtained in other states.

At each turn, the legislature - including some of his allies in the Democratic-controlled House - knocked down the proposals like so many slow-moving clay birds on a skeet-shooting range.

On Monday, Rendell defended his weekend veto of a bill expanding gun owners' self-defense rights - but declared his efforts to reduce gun violence through legislation "an abject failure."

"It's a lost cause in Pennsylvania," Rendell said in a conference call with reporters. He accused the General Assembly of kowtowing to the National Rifle Association.

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/politics/20101129_Rendell_calls_bid_to_curb_guns_in_Pennsylvania_a_lost_cause.html

[bluestateguy]

1. And this is why I won't support him for the presidential nomination

He's a gun confiscationist.

[spin]

21. He may be a Democrat, but with his track record I can't support him either.

I did vote for Obama even though he was supposed to be very anti-RKBA. So far, he has been very reasonable about RKBA, which is what I expected and hoped for.

What I have seen of Rendell has impressed me except for his anti-RKBA campaign. He's a throwback to the days when draconian gun control was the fad.

[X_Digger]

2. Poor, poor Eddie.

:nopity:

[RamboLiberal]

3. Agree - I think Fast Eddie got stuck in the early nineties

[PavePusher]

4. Hey, Eddie! Here's a hint...

Go after the criminals and leave the legal Citizens alone, you friggin' 'tard.

[friendly_iconoclast]

23. Hey, don't compare Fast Eddie to the mentally challenged.

They have human worth and dignity....

[PavePusher]

24. You are very correct. My apologies. n/t

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

5. Looks like the article forgot to mention...

all those measures he supports don't do shit to stop crime.
That's the goal right? Then why not push for laws that combat crime and don't burden law'biding citizens?

[Atypical Liberal]

19. That's the problem.

>all those measures he supports don't do shit to stop crime.


From the article:

>On Monday, Rendell defended his weekend veto of a bill expanding gun owners' self-defense rights -
>but declared his efforts to reduce gun violence through legislation "an abject failure."
>"It's a lost cause in Pennsylvania," Rendell said in a conference call with reporters. He accused
>the General Assembly of kowtowing to the National Rifle Association.

It is a lost cause to try and reduce gun violence by restricting the rights of law-abiding citizens. That absolutely is a lost cause. The law-abiding people of this nation are not going to stand for having their rights restricted when it does nothing to impact criminals.

What is not a lost cause would be to reduce gun violence by restricting access of firearms to criminals. Most murders, and probably most firearm crime in general, is committed by people with extensive criminal background that already make it illegal for them to own firearms. Instead of coming up with more and more restrictions that only impact the law-abiding, we need restrictions that only affect criminals.

[saras]

6. WTF?

Where's the Three Billy Goats Gruff when we need them?

Anyone who's not a gun dealer (whether legal or illegal) doesn't NEED more than one new handgun a month. And I'm surprised anyone getting normal wages can afford them. I mean, who the hell is this going to inconvenience anyway? What sane person is even going to NOTICE this law?

And wanting gun owners to report lost or stolen weapons - oh, that's just so horribly evil that there's no hope for the guy.

I hope for the sake of DU as a whole that all the other posts in this thread forgot to put the little sarcasm signs in their posts.

[jazzhound]

7. You're missing a major point w/regard to objections to

Rendell's attitudes. Those who are voicing objection do so primarily due to Mr. Rendell's position on the Castle Doctrine and other anti-firearm positions:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x349277

Here are three posts which you should find illuminating:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x349277#349300
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x349277#349336
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x349277#349444

[Euromutt]

8. Well, if we're talking about "need"

Why does it need to specifically be one handgun a month? Why can it never be twelve handguns a year, say? After all, if the purpose of this kind of law is to impede the usefulness of straw purchasers--which it ostensibly is--limiting an individual to twelve guns over a twelve-month period should be equally effective as limiting them to one gun a month. Whereas it is quite possible for a private individual to find that his dealer or online distributor (e.g. Lipsey's http://www.lipseys.com/ or Davidson's http://www.galleryofguns.com/) is offering a special price on two particular models of handgun, both of which he's had his eye on for a while. Bear in mind that "handgun" includes .22-cal plinkers and target pistols, which are generally inexpensive (unless you're talking Olympic-grade; .22LR doesn't create a lot of pressure, so the metallurgy doesn't have to be of the same standard needed to shoot heavier calibers) and less than ideal for criminal applications. And hey, some people come into sufficient sums of money to buy two handguns from time to time, e.g. when they get their tax refunds, or an end-of-year bonus.

It seems to me that the whole "impeding straw purchasing" rationale is simply a fig leaf, and that the actual purpose of such laws is a) to harass legal gun owners and b) as a foot in the door for handgun registration; because how else are you going to ensure that someone isn't buying more than X guns within a given unit of time? Of course, proponents of such laws aren't going to tip their hand ahead of time and admit that registration will be next on the agenda. That will come only after the "one handgun a month" law comes into force, whereupon the proponents will say "gosh, I don't know why we didn't think of this before, but this law is unenforceable without a system of registration!"

I've witnessed this process in a different context. Sixteen years ago, I was a draftee brevet sergeant in the Dutch army, doing paperwork for two air force helicopter pilots functioning as liaison officers to the army's all new Airmobile Brigade. At the time, the air force was looking to buy attack helicopters, and the Ministry of Defense found itself pitted against the Ministry of Economic Affairs in attempting to convince parliament to approve the purchase of either American-made McDonnell-Douglas (since merged into Boeing) AH-64 Apaches, or French-made Eurocopter Tigres (so unproven that not even the French had bought any yet). One night while our section (S-3, Operations and Training) was having a friendly alcohol-fueled get-together, one of the air force officers explained the process. Basically, he said, what we want is AH-64Ds, but those are expensive; so we'll ask parliament to approve the purchase of the less sophisticated and thus cheaper AH-64As, and once we have those, we'll say "gosh, we could really increase our combat power if we got our A-versions upgraded to D-versions (or at least one out of every four helicopters), and it's not that much more money, much less than to switch to Tigres instead..."

It's essentially a variation on the "bait-and-switch" confidence trick.

And wanting gun owners to report lost or stolen weapons - oh, that's just so horribly evil that there's no hope for the guy.

The problem with seemingly "reasonable, common-sense" laws concerning guns is that they have all too frequently been subverted not to curb violent crime, but to impose de facto gun bans by making it too arduous for many private citizens to acquire and keep a firearm. In this case, the law is ostensibly intended to provide a way to nail straw purchasers, who buy guns on behalf of traffickers, and in the event a firearm recovered from a crime scene several states away gets traced to them, they say "oh yeah, a few months after I bought that gun, it was stolen out of my garage, but since there was no damage I could claim insurance on, I didn't bother to report it..."
The objection to this kind of law is that it doesn't contain, up front, a proposed means to distinguish a straw purchaser from a legitimate gun owner who genuinely lost a firearm, or had it stolen, without realizing it within the allotted time. The common problem with any law is that it's very difficult to predict how it could be abused until it comes into force, at which point it takes a major effort to get it repealed. By way of example, imagine if the "Patriot Act" hadn't come with sunset clauses. Who could have foreseen the massive abuse to which the provisions were put, right?

[saras]

25. So propose a better law

I've been waiting over forty years for handgun supporters in and around the NRA to offer some sensible laws that would curb gun use in crime.

I haven't seen or heard of one yet.

[high_and_mighty]

26. Why do we need new laws?

If you have been waiting forty years you should be pretty happy. Homicide rates have dropped around 33% from what they were forty years ago. Seems we are on the right track.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States

[DonP]

28. 'Splain to me please how ...

... any law, no matter how well written (or well intentioned) will have any impact on criminals who, by definition, ignore the law?

So I guess the short answer is, don't be so silly for 40 years.

No law is going to curb criminal use of guns. If you don't believe me, come to Chicago, a gun control paradise with a high violent crime rate to go with it.

Let's see, the NRA wound up supporting most of the current gun laws from the 1934 NFA on and correctly opposing some really, really stupid ones, like the DLC supported AWB.

Or was this just another slightly oblique NRA bashing attempt?

[SteveM]

29. Maybe yet another law is not the answer...

Gun use in crime has been going down over the last 15 years, even as the number of firearms in the hands of U.S. civilians has gone up by over 100,000,000. If you wish to further reduce the use of firearms in crimes, and wish to use a "better law," then I would suggest raising the penalty for use of a firearm in crime significantly -- and ENFORCING the law. Repeated use of and convictions for the use of guns in crime should be penalized even more. A thug that just can't get enough of being a thug needs to be in prison for a long time.

Passing laws does not in itself solve social problems. Frankly, I haven't seen a "better" gun-control law, either.

[PavePusher]

33. "I haven't seen or heard of one yet."`

Umm, hello-o-o?

There really is nothing you can do to "curb gun use in crime" except to actually curb the criminals.

[cantonjaston]

10. People don't NEED to write more than one blog post

a month or one LTTE or go to more than one political demonstration either. It's not the bill of "needs".

[GreenStormCloud]

11. We don't have a Bureau of Needs.

In a free country, I can pretty much buy what I WANT and can afford to buy. Typically, I don't buy any guns at all during a typical year. But at other times I have bought two guns at the same time in a gun store. I bought them because I WANTED them. I don't have to justify the purchase to some petty authoritarian who doesn't like my freedom.

[aikoaiko]

12. There have been a couple of times where I bought more than 1 gun/month

Some because they were gifts and some because I was collecting. What sane person would oppose these purchases?

The thing about laws regarding the failure to report a stolen gun is that such laws criminalize people who don't know they've been the victim of crime. You might think its obvious that a gun was stolen, but that might not be the case. I have my guns locked in cases in my storage closet. I don't check that closet every day and do an inventory. Its possible that someone could steal a gun and I wouldn't know it for a while.

[DonP]

13. Another self appointed DU cop?

"I hope for the sake of DU as a whole that all the other posts in this thread forgot to put the little sarcasm signs in their posts."

Wow! Talk about self appointed wardens of the acceptable. There is a much greater diversity of opinion on DU then you seem to be able to grasp.

Yes, you are right and everyone else here is wrong on the issue. Thanks for bestowing your enlightened views on us poor unwashed masses.

The tide has been running very heavily towards the gun rights side for the past decade or so, with 48 states now allowing concealed carry. President Obama has signed more pro gun rights support legislation in 2 years than Bush did in 8, so you might want to try and catch up with the rest of the class on these issues before you start obliquely suggesting anyone here is a troll.

[friendly_iconoclast]

16. The Guns forum gets more than its share of self-appointed zampolits.

I think it's a variant of the BEIKVFMcG ("But everybody I know voted for McGovern!") syndrome, in which people only talk to those

who agree with them politically. They tend to be more than a little upset when something disturbs their worldview.



Ironically, the teabaggers tend to do the same thing...

[DonP]

20. I know, it's just very disheartening to see it on DU though

People that insist that everyone must share their view on every issue ... or you must be some kind of a Freeper - can be very tiresome.

Or the ones that think you are not a "Real Dem" if you place too high a priority on the second amendment as a major issue. Of course if you suggested the same thing about their pet issue; Women's right to choose, gay marriage, unions or any of the other high profile issues, they'd explode in rage and demand you be thrown off the board.

The whole point of the party, IMHO, is not having to walk in lockstep on every single issue with every other Dem. You're allowed and in fact encouraged to think for yourself and choose your own priorities.

The saving grace is that those kind of people seldom find their way down there and almost never stick around to debate any issues. They show up, post their favorite bumper sticker slogans on guns and disappear just as quickly to smugly tell their friends how courageous they are and how they told those gun people where to go.

[GreenStormCloud]

27. No, Bush did sign more gun rights legislation.

Obama only signed a rider on a must-pass credit card reform bill, and it only required national parks to obey the laws of the state they were in.

Bush signed the 2005 Protection Of Lawful Commerce In Arms Act. As a Senator, Obama voted against it. That bill saved the firearms manufacturers from being bombarded with frivolous lawsuits designed to drown them in legal fee.

And Bush signed an act that forbids gun confiscation like that which happened in the aftermath of Katrina.

The AWB expired under Bush. Although he said that he would sign it if it reached his desk, he did nothing to help it get there.

[X_Digger]

14. I think you have a bridge of your own that needs tending. n/t

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rrneck]

32. Actually, the rest of us were wondering where yours was... nt

[Callisto32]

9. I realize this is NOT constructive.

Uncle Eddie is a self-important prick.

[spin]

30. That description applies to a lot of anti-firearm politicians ...

like Mayor Daley Of Chicago or Mayor Bloomberg of New York City.

[RSillsbee]

15. An abject failure.

but declared his efforts to reduce gun violence through legislation "an abject failure."

We've been trying to tell the anti rights crowd that for years looks like we're finally getting through

[slackmaster]

17. If he doesn't like guns, he shouldn't buy one

It's very simple.

[spin]

22. Gov. Rendell loves tilting at windmills ...

At least he admits that it's useless.

[old mark]

31. Rendell himself is a lost cause. He NEVER failed to screw over the workers

both as mayor and as governor...the employees were the first to feel the weight in the several times of economic trouble here in PA...Wage and hiring freezes, job cuts and furloughing, Rendell was a shit to his workers.
I have no respect for anything he says or does, and I expect to see him in some national office next year - the Democratic Party loves him!

FWIW, most of his "anti-gun" measures violated the State Constitution, but he didn't seem to care about that - his insistance on pushing this gun control issue helped pave the way for the GOP takeover of PA this past November by alienating gun owners statewide.

Fuck you, Ed.
mark