Pennsylvania is at something of a crossroads.
The state has long been at least fairly pro-gun, despite two very large urban centers. There were enough voices outside of Philadelphia and Pittsburgh to keep pro-gun efforts as dominant. It was a swing state in a lot of ways.
But it sure looks like those days may be over. Pennsylvania seems to be embracing more and more gun control.
Yet not everywhere there has lost the sense God gave a baby duck.
It seems a lot of folks in the state actually understand that when you’re talking about mass shootings, gun control isn’t going to do much of anything.
The last year closed with more national mass shootings, reawakening the narrative of what to do to prevent such incidents.
Many advocate for stronger gun laws, but some people in Bedford, Cambria, and Somerset counties say the focus should be on mental illness. People go crazy, then kill, they say.
Problems in the system?
“You cannot legislate for crazy,” retired state trooper Bob Barnes, of Somerset, said recently. “Guns are not the problem. It is the broken mental health system. I saw the brokenness from the 1980s to the early 2000s.”
Now, Barnes is both right that you can’t legislate for crazy.
A lot of people will claim that there’s no link to significant mental illness in mass shooters, which is true, but you also can’t tell me that sane people try to gun down as many innocent children as possible. I’m just not buying it.
What we have is a condition that we don’t know how to identify.
But what strikes a nerve for Jay Judith, of Bedford, is red flag laws that permit a state court to order the temporary removal of firearms from those who they believe may present a danger to others or themselves.
“Anyone can accuse anyone of anything, Judith said. “If an ex-couple have an argument and one of them knows the other has guns, he or she can claim, ‘I was threatened.’ Then, it can escalate to, ‘I saw my ex-partner threaten other people.’ So, a judge might even err on the side of caution and invoke the temporary removal order.”
“Red flag laws violate due process and infringe on gun owners’ Second Amendment rights,” Kasterko said.
“It is a privilege to have a gun,” New said, “but a right because of the constitution.”
Of course, this is nothing we haven’t said before here at Bearing Arms. Red flag laws do violate due process. I think New meant to say, “It’s NOT a privilege…” because of what follows–assuming he wasn’t horrifically misquoted there–because I get where he’s coming from.
Granted, it’s not a right because of the Constitution, but protected by it, but again, we get where he’s coming from.
Unfortunately, far too many politicians and activists don’t seem to understand these very basic concepts. This isn’t groundbreaking stuff these people are talking here. They didn’t find the one part of Pennsylvania where the drinking water contains wisdom juice that exists nowhere else on the planet, so these guys are breaking new ground.
They’re not. This is stuff we all know and have tried to hammer through the thick heads of those who want to take away our right to keep and bear arms.
We know that you can’t stop crazy people. We also know that red flag laws, while touted as a solution to mass shootings, regularly fail to stop mass shootings.
What we need is to get people in office who also understand this.
Pennsylvania has an anti-gun governor and an anti-gun legislature. If folks aren’t careful, all those things these folks know won’t work will become law anyway.
Meanwhile, Philadelphia will continue to see high violent crime rates because none of these laws actually impact the people who are actually causing all of the problems in the state.
Pennsylvania is at a crossroads, and if they’re not careful, we’re going to see them go down the same trainwrecked path so many other states have.
