Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Newspaper contacts | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Lawmaker on mission to uphold gun rights

May 7, 2013

State Rep. Daryl Metcalfe, R-Butler, is on a mission to ensure that people maintain what he calls their God-given rights to own firearms....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(41)

northerntier

May-08-13 6:51 PM

Would the proposed legislation have any effect except - perhaps - to prohibit PA law enforcement from cooperating in enforcing federal laws? (Afaik, the ATF, etc. don't require PA's "permission" to enforce federal law within PA.)

I think the way it works with suspected undocumented individuals is that PA law enforcement may hold them and turn them over to federal authorities. If the law passes, would it prevent PA law enforcement from holding/turning over, for example, a burglary suspect who is found with a cache of (federally) illegal firearms (and explosives)?

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

gavinf56

May-08-13 4:26 PM

"Please explain how you can bar Federal Agents from enforcing laws ? Are you going to arrest the AFT or FBI agents? If you can pass a law to not enforce a federal law, such as those this lawmaker wishes, what will happen when the next law maker wants not to enforce so other federal law such as law requiring automatic weapons licenses or any other law a state disagrees with?" - distantobsvr

It's already happening with marijuana laws.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DavidBross

May-08-13 12:59 PM

"Metcalfe is chief sponsor of state House Bill 357, which would make any attempts by the federal government to restrict or ban firearms unenforceable." "Among the co-sponsors of Metcalfe's bill, known as the Firearms Freedom Act, are state Reps. Garth Everett, R-Muncy, and Rick Mirabito, D-Williamsport. Everett told the audience that more gun laws are not needed, just better enforcement of existing ones."

I don't understand how the sponsors of this bill can support better enforcement of existing gun laws when this bill would make such enforcement illegal.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

distantobsvr

May-08-13 11:28 AM

Amazingly crazy how stupid some people are...

Please explain how you can bar Federal Agents from enforcing laws ? Are you going to arrest the AFT or FBI agents? If you can pass a law to not enforce a federal law, such as those this lawmaker wishes, what will happen when the next law maker wants not to enforce so other federal law such as law requiring automatic weapons licenses or any other law a state disagrees with?

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Tedeaux

May-08-13 12:33 AM

You mean like the enforement of federal marijuana laws, Jerry?Berry's

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JerryfromRI

May-07-13 6:28 PM

I've read HB357.

It absolutely does seek to make unenforceable federal laws which have not even been passed yet. It makes it a felony, punishable by jail time, for anyone that attempts to enforce the federal laws it targets.

This bill sets horrible precedent and could be used to nullify any federal law it, past or future.

0 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

nobud74

May-07-13 5:45 PM

Jerry, I don't believe there is a call to nullify existing regs, rather a call to enforce them correctly instead of making more. Doesn't that sound sensible?

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

eriklatranyi

May-07-13 5:44 PM

Jerry:

You are really stupid.

You cannot nullify something that was not in effect.

6 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JerryfromRI

May-07-13 5:14 PM

Why stop at nullifying (not even passed) federal gun safety regulations?

Why not nullify the voting rights act too? And the civil rights act, and the EPA, and OSHA regulations? And of course Obamacare.

You could bring back poll taxes and school segregation. Eight year olds could be free to work in factories for 16 hours a day.

Where will the nullification stop?

0 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

eriklatranyi

May-07-13 5:00 PM

After five years of record-breaking firearm sales, the FBI releases its report tht firearm homocides are down 49% since their peak in 1993.

Other crimes using firearms (robberies, rapes, etc) are down 75% since 1993.

Liberals caught lying.......again.

7 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

nobud74

May-07-13 4:53 PM

The point is that if we are going down this road we had better get it right because there is no putting the genie back in the bottle.

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

nobud74

May-07-13 4:52 PM

billybob, the problem with your comment is that healthcare is not a science, it is a practice because it is not always exact. I'm sure you know someone who has had issues, and now they are fine. Should they be prohibited from owning a gun? Have you ever lost your temper? Should you be prohibited? This question will ultimately influence not just gun ownership, but everything in our lives that the govt attempts to control. Giving over such determination is reminiscent of a bad B grade Sci Fi flick.

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

billybob

May-07-13 3:30 PM

The problem with the whole background check system lies in the health care laws. If a Mental health professional determines someone is crazy they are not allowed to tell anybody. The law should be change to say they have to tell everybody. Heck tattoo it on their forehead, that way when a diagnosed crazy person tried to buy a gun the store would know they are crazy and not sell it to them.

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

distantobsvr

May-07-13 1:15 PM

I am thankful there is someone out there fighting for our rights.

How does passing unconstitutional laws protect the 2nd Amendment?

Does the logic of doing something unconstitutional to protect the constitution or even part of it sound a bit crazy…?

This congressman needs not only a class in constitutional law but one in logic also as do those who believe that by having a state law that is clearly unconstitutional will somehow save or protect the constitution or their ‘right’ god given or otherwise.

2 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Josh84

May-07-13 10:07 AM

@eric "I want to have the ability to go get a gun, I want others to have that ability to."

Agreed, but I don't think tougher regulation would help as much as tougher prosecution. We already have a system in place, it just needs better enforcement.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

agaumom

May-07-13 10:05 AM

It was my understanding that the 2nd Ammendment to the Constitution was added so that the states would not have to supply firearms to each member of its militia. As most of the settled area was "hostile" at that time. Farmers needed firearms to protect their families. We DO NOT have a "God-Given" right to own firearms!

0 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

joseywales

May-07-13 9:36 AM

You DO know Miss Cleo is a fraud, right?? -MrShaman

Grow a brain nrshaman, if you want to live your life clueless and defenseless, that's your business, better keep your cellphone charged up so when something bad comes down, you can hit 911 for help, don't worry help will get there as soon as they can, whenever that is.

7 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

pinecr

May-07-13 9:05 AM

I am thankful there is someone out there fighiing for our rights. Thank you.

5 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MrShaman

May-07-13 8:48 AM

"I applaud this move. Remember "323 people have been killed by modern sporting rifles, 195,000 have been killed by medical malpractice. This makes Obamacare 604 times more likely to kill you." - billybob

*

That's what Porky Limbaugh says, huh??

0 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MrShaman

May-07-13 8:44 AM

"The anti's make me laugh, because when the SHTF...." - joseywales

*

You DO know Miss Cleo is a fraud, right??

0 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MrShaman

May-07-13 8:39 AM

"You have a "God given right" to defend yourself, Rick." - Tedeaux

*

...Along with getting a "little"-more proactive about eliminating OTHERS.

*

See:

Biblical Intolerance

0 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MrShaman

May-07-13 8:35 AM

"State Rep. Daryl Metcalfe, R-Butler, is on a mission to ensure that people maintain what he calls their God-given rights to own firearms."

*

I'm fairly-certain "God" doesn't (really) have an opinion on the matter.

It's time for those pro-gun super-fans (who's development was fully-arrested at 13-years-of-age) to find some other excuse for guarding their paranoia.

0 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

nobud74

May-07-13 8:13 AM

eric, if you had a bout of depression and it was documented by your physician, yet you are better and in good health otherwise, would you like to have your second amendment right usurped? What many fail to realize is that the second amendment was not for hunting, target shooting or protecting yourself from personal attacks, although by extension the right to bear arms includes those, the amendment was to ensure the populace be able to be armed against an oppressive and overreaching govt. You have to remember that our founding fathers were dealing with such a govt in England and our separation from it was helped by an armed citizenry.

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ericwilliamsport

May-07-13 8:03 AM

I want to have the ability to go get a gun, I want others to have that ability to. I don't see the harm in intensifying the research on someone's ability to obtain a firearm, that doesn't deny anyone's right to the firearm. Honestly, if tougher regulation saves one life, it was worth it. Law abiding, in good mental standing individuals, I dont see any reduction in one's ability to own a firearm.

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ericwilliamsport

May-07-13 8:01 AM

Josh looking back I do realize I transposed that thought, yes a well regulated Militia having the right to bear arms versus having that right to bear arms AGAINST that militia. That is my fault. The sentiment is the same though, there is no finite blanket right to bear arms, especially for sportsman. My argument is not to say you shouldn't have the right, but no single person is a well regulated militia. Even if you could argue you were well regulated, this was written in a time when the reach of state government took days to reach part of a state, and local government was in its infancy. You were just as likely to defend yourself against the King's army from your home as you were in the military.

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 41 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web