Gun-violence-prevention group objects to Rep. Scott Perry (R-Moran) statement

[jpak]

http://www.ydr.com/politics/ci_18254707

A statewide gun-violence-prevention group has taken issue with a recent public statement by State Rep. Scott Perry, R-Carroll Township, calling it "insurrectionist."

But Perry said his remarks are being taken out of context, and he wasn't referring to armed insurrection so much as to general gun-owners' rights.

<snip>

"We must be able not only to hunt but to protect ourselves from an overbearing government that does not do the will of the people."

Max Nacheman, director of CeaseFirePA, said that statement amounts to an implicit endorsement of armed action against the government.

<more>

[tortoise1956]

1. I can't believe he could say such things...

Imagine that - he's following the same line of reasoning that the men who wrote the Constitution took!

Oh, the horror!

[safeinOhio]

32. What they said

"In monarchy the crime of treason may admit of being pardoned or lightly punished, but the man who dares rebel against the laws of a republic ought to suffer death"
Samuel Adams
His comment was about the Shays rebellion.

[oldhippie]

2. Well. So what?

I guess they would have objected to many of the Founding Father's statements on the subject also.

Like for instance:
"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

[flamin lib]

3. The sombitch should be in jail

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 115 > § 2385

§ 2385. Advocating overthrow of Government

Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or
Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or
Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.

[DonP]

4. Maybe we need to change all those oaths we take?

You know, the ones where we take one step forward, raise our right hand and swear to protect our country from "all enemies foriegn and domestic".

I guess some people think there can't ever be any domestic enemies.

[flamin lib]

7. My mistake, I thought all rkba enthusiasts were LAW ABIDING! nt

[DonP]

9. You have no idea what I'm talking about, do you?

FWIW no one ever said all gun owners are law abiding any more than saying all progressives are law abiding makes any sense. But not all gun owners are criminals or criminals in waiting either. That's equally ignorant.

The point is our own government recognizes in the oath every member of the US Government and US Military takes that we have a need, outlined in the constitution, to protect ourselves from both foreign AND domestic enemies. Don't like it - amend the constitution and good luck with your petitions.

If some totally irrelevant bunch of losers, passing for an irrelevant, memberless gun control group (and the equally ignorant wannabes) gets upset by the reality of the country they live in, it's not my problem.

[flamin lib]

10. I know exactly what you're talking about and the short version is you're wrong. nt

[DonP]

11. Not really, but you keep thinking that way, it will make you feel all warm and fuzzy

But this is easily resolved as to which of us is right, isn't it?

I'll expect to see the arrest notice for this guy any minute ... if you're right.

On the other hand, if you are full of shit, this pointless, and constitutionally ignorant gun control group will fade from the news and nothing will happen.

There really is no third alternative is there?

They, along with you and the OP don't seem to be able to differentiate between the concept of being prepared to protect the nation from possible domestic enemies, as stated in our founding documents, and actively advocating for the violent overthrow of the government.

Now you be a good little gun control activist and keep track of when the arrest of this Congress Critter takes place and the details of the charges. As soon as you post the articles I'll write you a lengthy apology.

Otherwise, as previously stated, you are full of crapola.

In the meantime I expect you to put your money where your mouth is and send those poor gun control folks a check with your hearty support for their cause and demand his immediate arrest.

The rest of us will wait here for news.

[flamin lib]

20. *sigh* it always comes down to this doesn't it? Profanity and personal

attacks.

Sen. Vitter has admitted to violating DC and LA prostitution laws but he is not in jail. VP Cheney has admitted to war crimes and isn't in jail.

Because it it politically inconvenient to enforce a law doesn't mean the law doesn't exist, is un-enforceable or un-constitutional.

My Dad told me that the first one to hurl an insult is out of ideas and has lost the argument. I quoted statute, you postulated otherwise, I defended my position, you reverted to vulgarities.

Finally, you don't know me so please stop making assumptions about me.

P.S.
My Dad also said that if you've seen two you've seen 'em all but I keep trying to verify that one . . .

[Bold Lib]

29. You mean like your post #8? I guess you are correct.

[flamin lib]

31. I don't see asking for credentials or links an insult.

FWIW I don't have a law degree, however living with a legal pro for 42 years has taught me to read and understand law, how it relates to the judicial system and to the Constitution. Call it self defense.

If you took my request for credentials for a slight, my apologies. Snarky? Yeah, but I truly don't think you are full of shit, just wrong on this point.

[RSillsbee]

35. I never swore to protect my country

I swore to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic and to bear true faith and allegiance to the same.

[tortoise1956]

5. Does anyone else here see the problem with this?

First, the threat of jail for simply speaking about the possibility of having to protect yourself against a tyrannical government fails under the first amendment. Second, I would love to see them try a case like that, based on comments in a speech, in almost any jurisdiction in the U.S. (excluding anti-gun paradises such as San Francisco or D.C.).

Second, what he said does not fall under this law. He simply expressed the same views as the founding fathers, which as far as I know are not illegal, that gun ownership is a protection against a government that is oppressing its citizenry. He did not state that THIS government has reached that point.

]] So, the final grade for your post is F

[flamin lib]

8. F as in it's the FUCKING LAW. Where'd you get your law degree? nt

[tortoise1956]

12. I am awed at your debating skills!

Your cogent argument and incisive reasoning is truly remarkable. I bow down to the Jedi debate master!

(Ok, snarkiness is over - I'll try this again)

Here is my line of reasoning:
1. The statute specifically states that it is only operative when someone makes those statements concerning an actual government.
2. The statement was made that guns were a protection against a tyrannical government ( in other words,a hypothetical instance).
3. He did NOT state that this government was at that point.

Ergo, there is no violation of the statute, and therefore no case in court.

Does this argument (from a high-school dropout) make sense to you? Or should I use smaller words?

[flamin lib]

14. Yes an no. It sounds good, however the vageries of law are such that

the sumbitch should be in jail.

If not THIS government, which?

If someone is foolish enough to say the President should be assassinated will the Secret service quander over the possibility of THIS President or some hypothetical President? I think not.

Moreover, references to Constitutional protections are futile because as long as the law is on the books it has the full strength of the Constitution. Unless/until it goes before the SCOTUS and ruled in conflict with the Constitution it is deemed NOT in conflict, therefore it has the full weight of Constitutional law behind it.

Finally, there are many, many ways to defend the constitution and each branch of government has unique to them which do not involve violence, so the statute is not in conflict with Constitutional protections.

Should the country get to the point that armed resistance is necessary, it was lost a long time ago. You can only rebel against the government if the military lets you.

[PavePusher]

17. I recall a lot of speculation on D.U. as to if President Bush might not relinquish power...

after election, and what could be done in such circumstances.

Those people should all report immediately to the nearest prison, yes?

[flamin lib]

18. If they proposed armed insurrection and/or

assassination the Secret service would have long since dealt with it.

Look, it's the fucking law, okay? How hard is that to understand?

[PavePusher]

19. Speculative "what-ifs" are not illegal.

Else a lot of really fun fiction novels would by contraband.

Lighten up, Francis.

[Katya Mullethov]

22. Arming an insurgency

Is not a "speculative what if" as far as sedetion goes . Hearings start tomorrow BTW .

[petronius]

37. Well by that logic, when the police or FBI show up to arrest that guy we'll know

you're right. But until that happens, I presume you'll stick with your line of reasoning here and assume that the complaining group is actually wrong?

[petronius]

36. Setting aside the specific issue, in general shouldn't the vagaries of law pretty much

always fall on the side of not putting people in jail? What are you saying: "it's a gray area, so let's toss him in there just in case"?

[PavePusher]

15. He didn't advocate any such thing....

unless you are conceeding that the government has become "overbearing <and> does not do the will of the people"...?

[DonP]

6. "Powerless Gun Control Group Whines out Loud"

There, a more accurate title for your usual Google Dump.

[rl6214]

13. Blah, blah, blah, unrec for normal shtick

and not policy statement (no statement of any kind)

[flamin lib]

16. Jpac provides a valuable service to this forum. Without posters like

this the forum becomes an echo chamber. There really is a pendulum out there and it will inevitably swing in the direction not to gun owner's liking, and history tells us that that swing can be excessive.

Sitting around and congratulating each other on your impeccable knowledge of Constitutional law from the comfort of wherever while the rest of the world moves around you is very bad situational awareness.

A backlash WILL come and it may come with a vengeance.

[DonP]

21. OK, for those keeping score that's 2 for "backlash" and another 4.5 million for the NRA

What you and your little friends don't seem to realize is that what we are experiencing now IS the backlash, from decades of increasinly ooppressive gun control and from a generally uninvolved citizenry that didn't wake up until the so called, and totally ineffective, assault weapons ban.

It's highly unlikely that the trend will abate in any way for at least a few more decades with universal concealed carry, the resurgence of target shooting and hunting and a falling crime rate. The NRA certainly won't ever ignore the issue and with 4.5 million dues paying members and with the only national gun control group, the Sugarmann/Brady complex having 0 membership, it doesn't look good for your side.

Of course you could be one of those we get down here once in a while that lets their guard down and admits they are actually hoping for a few high profile massacres to "get people's attention". Pretty sick shit to hope for deaths to try and prove a political point, isn't it?

[flamin lib]

23. Actually, some of my friends are quite large. Keep your head up there

where it's warm and dark. Besides, what difference does it make what size my friends are? Are you some kind of sizeist or sumpthin'?

Also don't need to hope. Columbine, Virginia Tech, Tuscon just to name a few. These are real existing pressures on the pendulum and when it swings it's not going to be good for people who own guns. It's going to come fast and it's going to come hard and it's going to surprise all those who reside in echo chambers like this.

That's okay, I know it's comfy up there in that warm dark place. Case in point: when Loughner was adjudged legally unfit for trial there were two threads here that offered an opportunity to discuss the serious problem of mental health and availability of guns to the seriously mentally impaired. Did a single Gungeoneer take advantage of those opportunities to acknowledge or discuss the issue? Nope.

[DonP]

26. Columbine, V-Tech and Tucson?

They are a bigger marker for the blatant failure of your ideas of gun control than anything else.

Two were your cherished and absolutely stupid idea of "gun free zones" (pssst, criminals don't give a shit about your laws or your signs the only thing that stopped both massacres were other people with guns)and Loughner was a failure of the police, his family and the University to report serious mental health issues and ignoring previous threats he made on the congresswoman, not unlike the advisor trying to protect Cho at V-Tech by choosing to keep his mental health issues "off the grid".

But you keep hoping for the worst and give us all a call when you and your "big friends" get any gun control legislation actually passed. Because, you see that's the only thing that reeally matters when you cut out all the bullshit. Who's willing to put their money up and what actually gets passed.

While you're at it get a check or two off to the Brady group, put your money where your mouth is, besides they could use an actual dues paying member. We'll wait right here for you and your backlash, but we won't be holding our breath for it.

[flamin lib]

28. The really serious problem with this echo chamber is the

"with us or against us" mentality. Because someone makes a comment at odds with the reverberations here they are labeled anti gun or pro-gun control. I am neither and I defy you to find evidence otherwise.

Please link to a reference to me "cherishing" gun free zones. While you're at it find some links to pro gun control posts made by me.

The common threads running through my posts are a concern that gun enthusiasts are oblivious to pressures in favor of gun gun control and that people who know guns and the responsibility that ownership incurs are the ones best suited to write legislation but steadfastly refuse to accept that responsibility preferring to simply bitch about what does get passed.

I repeat, there was an opportunity to discuss the serious deficiencies in availability of firearms to mentally impaired people and this entire forum passed on it.

[jpak]

24. The underground is always way ahead of our larger society on many issues

and after the Gabby Giffords shooting, and the really stupid GOP over-reach on gun issues, the backlash will surely cometh.

yup

:hi:

[spin]

30. O.K. where is the legislation that bans extended magazines?

Surely the backlash from the tragic Gabby Giffords shooting would have at least resulted in a ban on such magazines.

In my opinion such a ban if it is ever enacted would just be another useless "feel good" law that might actually be counterproductive. Extended magazines are often less reliable than standard magazines and a shooter can easily carry multiple firearms or with practice learn how to swap the more reliable standard magazines in under two seconds or faster.

You remind me of those who predict that the apocalypse predicted in the book of Revelations is imminent and that people will be "raptured" into heaven any day now.

[spin]

27. I will agree Jpac is an asset as he provokes discussion ...

and it is unfortunate that on a very liberal forum such as DU it's hard to find many extremely liberal and progressive members who are willing to venture into the Gungeon and take on the Democrats who believe in firearm ownership and RKBA. I don't bother posting on pro-RKBA forums as they usually agree with me. I come to DU to debate and learn.

I suspect that many posters who favor draconian gun control avoid the Gungeon is because their arguments are based on emotion and fall apart when countered with arguments based on facts and statistics.

However, discussions which do not degenerate into trading insults can be productive and can possibly lead to some agreement on how to reduce gun violence.

I always try to consider the arguments posed by those who do not favor gun ownership as I do, and I have to admit that I have changed my views on gun control to a degree since I started posting here. I try to be open minded and am more than willing to change my position on any topic if I find that my views are wrong. Unfortunately many proponents of draconian gun control seem to be locked into their positions and unwilling to even admit that those who disagree with them make ANY valid points. This could be a result of tragedies which have been caused by the misuse of firearms and had a direct effect on their lives. This I can understand and I can feel compassion for them.

[gejohnston]

38. There is a pendulum but it is more complex than you think

There was a time South Carolina banned handguns (1902-1965). Texas once required licenses for handguns in the 1890s. The civil rights movement swept those away. Those laws were not passed to disarm the Klan. Just like the concealed carry law that Wyoming repealed. It was passed IIRC in something like 1887 and became a shall issue in 1995.

[spin]

25. One of the reasons the founders included the Second Amendment ...

in the Bill of Rights was that they realized that there was always the possibility of a tyrannical government gaining control of the United States. An armed civilian population was and still is a deterrent to those who would seek to replace our current form of government with a dictatorship. The Second Amendment could be called the ultimate guarantee of our freedom. It could be considered to be legitimate self defense for freedom only to be used in those times when the citizens face an imminent threat from a tyranny which had usurped all liberty for the average person. In such a situation opponents of the government would be rounded up, disappeared and tortured. In such times the people would have little or no representation and their votes would make no difference to the edicts passed by a government that no longer represented its citizens.

The fact that our country has the longest lasting written Constitution in the world today may well be due to the First and Second Amendments.


From the link in the OP:

A statewide gun-violence-prevention group has taken issue with a recent public statement by State Rep. Scott Perry, R-Carroll Township, calling it "insurrectionist."

But Perry said his remarks are being taken out of context, and he wasn't referring to armed insurrection so much as to general gun-owners' rights.

A May 30 story in the Allentown Morning Call states that Perry made the following statement in a "recent interview":

"We must be able not only to hunt but to protect ourselves from an overbearing government that does not do the will of the people."
http://www.ydr.com/politics/ci_18254707

If the founding fathers were still alive today and made these statements would they be considered insurrectionists against our current government?

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States" (Noah Webster in `An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution', 1787, a pamphlet aimed at swaying Pennsylvania toward ratification, in Paul Ford, ed., Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States, at 56(New York, 1888))

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." (Tench Coxe in `Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution' under the Pseudonym `A Pennsylvanian' in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 at 2 col. 1)

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them." (Richard Henry Lee, 1788, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights, Walter Bennett, ed., Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican, at 21,22,124 (Univ. of Alabama Press,1975)..)

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- (Thomas Jefferson)

(source for quotes: http://www.godseesyou.com/2nd_amendment_quotes.html)

We can argue all day if an armed revolution would defeat a tyranny that had gained control of our government. Considering how successful we have been in our war in Afghanistan, I would say that at a minimum an uprising of the citizens in this nation with 300 million firearms and many well trained ex-members of the military would cause a considerable disruption and easily could be successful.

But we are nowhere near the point that such action is necessary. While it is true that our country is deeply divided and we face economic problems, this is not unusual and we have in the past resolved our problems without a revolution.

It can be argued that the Civil War was a failed revolution, but the object of the South was not to overthrow the government but to separate from it. One region of the country wanted to own slaves, the other was opposed. Other factors were involved but I personally believe the issue of slavery was the most important. Had the people in the northern states been as angry at the federal government as those in the south, the government would have fallen.

I personally fear that if we ever lose our right to own firearms the corporations will take over our nation and turn us into slaves. I don't want to live in a nation ruled by Exon, Bank of America and Microsoft. We don't ever want to be citizens in a nation of the corporations, by the corporations and for the corporations.

Fortunately we still have the power of the vote. The fact that Obama was elected is reassuring.

[ileus]

33. Hate to admit it but he's right....

[RSillsbee]

34. So, what exactly is wrong w/ his statement? NT