 |
 |
|
|
|
|
By Michael J. Slavonic, Chairman, Legislative Committee Allegheny County Sportsmen's League (Mr.) Kim Stolfer, Vice Chairman, Legislative Committee Allegheny County Sportsmen's League |
|
In our lawsuit against former Governor Tom Ridge and the Pennsylvania State Police asking the courts to force this administration to abide by state law, the Ridge administration and the PSP has, not surprisingly, acquired a cadre of allies in their fight to oppose us. Along with the PSP State Police brief, we have also received a copy of an Amici brief filed in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in support of the PSP gun registry from, none other than, the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence and the Pennsylvania Million Mom March. These organizations have been joined by the Pennsylvania Chiefs of Police Association, Pennsylvanians Against Handgun Violence and Ceasefire PA. The Amici brief filed by the gun prohibitionists attacks the ACSL on two points; 1) that the General Assembly, in passing Act 17, did not intent to prohibit the Pennsylvania State Police from maintaining the records on law abiding citizens of Pennsylvania, which they claim is a record of sales database, 2) That the records retained by the PSP are a record of sales database, and not a registry of firearms ownership, which they agree is prohibited by law under section 6111.4. If this were true, that the records being maintained by the PSP are not a registry of firearms ownership, as the ACSL alleges, than why does the PSP require that all transfers of firearms, whether new or existing, must contain the name, address, social security number and serial numbers of the firearms being transferred? If it were only a record of sales database, than all that which would be needed for the state police to record would be the State Id number, and not the firearm ownership information it requests in order for the State Police to report on the number of firearms sold in Pennsylvania in any given period. Shortly after the Commonwealth Court decision was announced the Brady Campaign and the Million Mom March issued a news release applauding the court's decision. That announcement by the gun prohibitionist comes as no surprise. Gun registration is one of the three types of laws that must first be enacted before total gun confiscation can take place. These anti-gun zealots claim that it is not their goal to use a registration system to ban any gun, but history shows differently. The founder of the modern anti-gun movement, Nelson ‘Pete’ Shield, laid out the gun prohibitionist’s plan for total handgun confiscation in an interview with the New Yorker magazine in 1976. In that interview Shield’s responded to the question as to why Shield’s organization supported an “exceedingly ineffectual measure” being offered in the Congress, and Shield’s replied; “I am convinced that we have to have federal legislation to build on. We are going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily – given the politically realities – going to be very modest. Of course, it’s true politicians will then go home and say, ‘This is a great law. The problem is solved’. And it’s also true that such statement will tend to defuse the gun-control issue for a time. So then we’ll have to start working again to strengthen that law, and then again to strengthen that law, and maybe again and again. Right now, though, we’d be satisfied not with a half of a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal -- total control of handguns in the United States -- is going to take time. My estimate is from seven to ten years. The first problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered. And the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition—except for the military, policeman, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors – totally illegal” Shield went on to say that “The pro-gun crowd keeps arguing argue that people like me want to take away all guns from Americans. That’s just not true. Sporting rifles and shotguns have their place. But the handgun has no other purpose, other than to kill somebody. While it’s true that criminals would still manage to get a hold of handguns, even if there were strict laws against their possession, the gradual reduction of handguns will make it much harder for them to get a hold of guns.” Pete Shield founded an organization called the National Council to Control handguns in January of 1974 after his son was murdered in the so-called Zebra killing in California. Shield’s died in 1985 before ever being able to see his plan become a reality. In an effort to deflect attention from the controversial and confrontational nature of their organizations, Sarah and Jim Brady were retained as spokespersons and the names were changed (again), on June 14, 2001, to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence was changed to the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. On June 28, 2001 the Brady Campaign announced that the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, and the Million Mom March would officially merge on Oct. 1, making the mothers' group a part of the Brady group. The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence is the legal arm of the anti-gun movement; responsible for funding the lawsuits against the gun manufacturers. Thus fulfilling Shields promise to slow down the production of handguns in America. At no time through out its history, including changing the name of this prohibitionist organization, did they ever denounce Pete Shields objectives. While these organization will tell you that they are just for common sense gun law. Their Mission Statement reveals a different agenda; “The Brady Campaign and the Brady Center believe that a safer America can be achieved without banning all guns. The Brady Campaign works to enact and enforce sensible gun laws, regulations and public policies through grassroots activism, electing pro-gun control public officials and increasing public awareness of gun violence. “ It is important to point to the words, “without banning all guns”. That of course means that they are therefore in favor of banning "some" (?) firearms. While the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, and the Million Mom March seem to go out of their way say they do not want to ban ALL guns, there are other national gun prohibitionist who are more straight forward, and tell the truth. One such organization is the Violence Policy Center (VPC). The VPC members are so determined to achieve their ultimate goal of a total ban on, at least, handguns that they have arrogantly created a web site called Ban Handguns Now to publicize their fight. This organization has even gone to the length of writing a handbook that describes how such a ban can be won. Even though they explain that gun registration is worthless as a crime prevention measure, it is nevertheless, a critical component for a total handgun ban. To put it simply, you can't ban them if you don't know who owns them. The gun prohibitionist’s brief was prepared by the Washington D. C. Law Firm of Covington & Burling, in close cooperation with the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence also located in Washington D. C. These outsiders are coming into Pennsylvania to force our state Government to register law-abiding citizens of this state because you choose to exercise your constitutional right to purchase handguns. Commonwealth Court rendered its decision on January 9, 2002. The ACSL issued a news release on January 15, 2002 announcing our intention to appeal the Commonwealth Court’s decision. On February 1, 2002 the Supreme Court agreed to hear our case and set April 23, 2002 for briefs to be completed. It is interesting that the anti-gunner filed their Amici brief on June 17, 2002, three weeks after Ed Rendell won the Democratic nomination for Governor. It is our belief that the timing of this Amici Brief is not only politically significant, but that it also represents an insight into the future legislative agenda of the groups listed in the brief. Are they attempting to pave the way for Ed Rendell's agenda should he be elected Governor? Just who is the Law Firm of Covington & Burling? It appears that this law firm has ties to the Clinton Justice Department. According to a February 21, 2001 news release the firm announced that two former Deputy Associate Attorney Generals in the Clinton Justice Department were returning to Covington & Burling. In addition the lawyers "OF COUNSEL" for Covington & Burling are Aaron Cooper and Christopher N. Sipes. Mr. Cooper has had an interesting background; from 1995 to 1997 Mr. Cooper was a Legislative Correspondent for Senator Frank Lautenberg. Christopher N. Sipes appears to have been involved in litigating cases that involve databases for Covington & Burling. It is obvious that this is a national effort to protect their future ‘gun confiscation’ agenda by supporting the practice of registering Pennsylvania gun owners. While the NRA came on board with us just prior to Ed Rendell winning the nomination, that information was only known by the ACSL and our attorney. We withheld publicizing NRA’s involvement until now. The Rendell for Governor Campaign has never denied the fact that the Brady Campaign and the Million Mom March have endorsed him for Governor as far back as January of 2002. In a January 24, 2002 campaign news release Mr. Rendell responded to the endorsement saying, "I am thrilled to receive these endorsements today," said Rendell at the press conference. "Anyone who knows me, knows that I am one hundred percent committed to keeping our citizens and our children safe. I believe that responsible and targeted gun control laws can decrease the amount of gun violence that blankets our news everyday and help restore security to our schools and neighborhoods.". An integral part of the Rendell campaign’s gun control agenda is his flagship; One Gun Per Month which he has committed to seeking the legislatures’ support of soon after his election. The Rendell Plan for Protecting our Communities lists plans to enact a prohibition on the purchase of more than "One Gun A Month" and Ed Rendell freely admits that gun registration is an essential component if his one-gun-a-month scheme is to work. Another part of the Rendell ‘agenda’ is his opposition to ANY legislation that would prohibit lawsuits against gun manufacturers. These issues, coupled with the factually challenged socialist Federal legislation (McCain’s S. 890) to close the gun shows, are the legislative flagship of the Brady Campaign and the Million Moms March. The Rendell Plan for Protecting our Communities Mr. Rendell is quoted as saying “I support the Second Amendment and the rights of hunters. While I will not take away the guns owned by law-abiding citizens, I firmly believe that we have to protect our communities from violence”. The question for law-abiding citizens of Pennsylvania is should we believe him when his supporters are attacking our rights? Well, Professor John Lott doesn’t. Professor Lott is the author of More Guns, Less Crime and has published the definitive study on the effects of gun ownership and the enactment of concealed weapons permits on crime. In an article published in the Philadelphia Inquirer on June 6, 2002 titled “On guns, Ed Rendell can’t seem to shoot straight”, Lott recalled that he was invited to sit on a panel discussion with Ed Rendell. Lott reported that ”During 1999, when I was at the University of Chicago law school, lawyers for the city of Philadelphia asked me to participate in a panel on cities suing gun-makers. Rendell had been the first mayor to seriously talk about doing that, and he wanted a session to educate city lawyers about the issue.” Lott explained that, “Three-quarters of the panelists (including Rendell) supported Rendell's desire to sue the gun-makers. During the presentations, Rendell said again that he didn't want to take guns away from hunters or law-abiding citizens and that he wanted to use the suits to make gun-makers responsible for the costs that guns impose on cities.” Lott reported that several members of the anti-gun crowd “noticeably groaned and rolled their eyes when Rendell said that he didn't want to take away people's guns.” Lott then reported this gem, “After the debate, Rendell immediately headed over to the Violence Policy Center people. I wanted to follow up on the discussion, so I tried to catch up with him as he crossed the room. The Violence Policy people were still visibly disturbed by his comments and, Rendell put his arm around one of them, saying, "I just can't say publicly what we want to do, we have to take these things slowly." I was standing right behind Rendell when he said it.” The Violence Policy Center is the brains behind the organization called “Ban Handguns Now” which outlines their goal of a total handgun ban. So, should we trust Ed Rendell when he tells us that, as Governor, he will not take away the guns owned by law-abiding sportsmen? Also, is this legal maneuver, by Ed Rendell’s supporters, to support the Ridge Administration’s position on keeping the gun registry an effort by Ed Rendell to set the stage for additional gun control, and possibly further restrictions on our constitutionally protected right to firearm ownership? You bet it is! The anti-gunners are clearly hard at work to ensure that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court sides with the Ridge Administration and the Pennsylvania State Police, and allow the PSP to continue to register law abiding handgun owners in Pennsylvania. This database is essential in order for Ed Rendell’s one-gun-a-month gun control scheme is to work. Also, it is a critical component in the prohibitionist’s game plan to eventually bring about a total ban on handguns. Also, we can not forget that Ed Rendell still advocates, in his refusal to support any legislation that would prohibit law suits against gun manufacturers, suing gun manufacturers. If these gun lawsuits are successful, and gun manufacturers end up going out of business. If that happens it will be a total ban on all further purchases of all firearms. Dealers will go out of business. Since all transfers of handguns must go through a dealer, any transfer will be banned. Even if we assume that the groups named in the Amici brief do not have as their ultimate goal the total prohibition of all handguns, there are other national groups who have announced that they are working toward a total ban on the private possession of, at least for now, all handguns. It is clear that the national gun prohibitionists are targeting Pennsylvania. These same groups fought hard to pass the much-reviled Act 17, and they are not about to allow us to destroy the Ridge Administration’s gun registry in Pennsylvania. That is apparently why they are bringing in the big guns from Washington. They believe that they may have a friend in the Governor's mansion in the Fall, unless we fight back. That of course is up to you! Tom Ridge & the Pennsylvania State Police's Brief
|