Phila. Lawmakers pressing for gun ban in parks and rec centers

[ViperGTS19801]

I don't understand why they are even asking about this. Seems like a solution looking for a problem.

http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/201...s-rec-centers/

One word. Preemption.

Alternately..."no."

[tmountjr]

Heard about this on KYW this morning. David Oh pushed back, asking about senior citizens walking their dogs in the park (saying they might not leave the house without a gun).

Oh's page has a contact link; perhaps he should hear from Philadelphia residents who oppose Clarke's and Resnick's proposed bans. His page is at http://philadelphiacitycouncil.net/c...minority-whip/ I'm going to email him and remind him about preemption and thank him for not letting this pass unopposed.

[serpentine]

I am writing my councilman who is on the committee, and Oh.

This is what I sent:

Mr. Johnson,

My name is Serpentine. I am one of your voting constituents. I met you prior to the last election on my way down to the subway. I know you met a lot of folks that day, and others, but I am telling you this because it was that moment that clinched my vote.

The reason I am writing today is because I recently read an article on CBSnews about the Parks and Rec Dept proposing the regulation of firearms in parks and rec centers. I am concerned about this, in particularly because it does not seem to address any actual issue at hand. I am not sure what your personal position is on the matter of guns, but if you honestly take a step back, and think about things objectively you will realize that the proposition only imposes restrictions on law abiding citizens.

The article quotes 54 shootings since 2010 in rec centers. Were these illegal shootings? Were any of them justified shootings under current PA law, e.g. Self Defense or Defense of Others? I don't know the answer to those questions, but I believe that these must be asked and presented to the committee For arguments sake, lets say 50 of the shootings (93%) were illegal shootings; either with an illegally concealed weapon, or illegal gun, or unjustified shooting. How would new laws restricting the lawful carry of a firearm in those places prevent or curtail those shootings? It wouldn't. It would only ensure that people who carry as a means of self defense would be denied that right; and then be a the mercy of the ones who break the law. This proposal will do nothing to help stop the perceived problem. We currently have laws that can be enforced. Carrying illegally, discharging illegally, etc...

I hope you take the time to consider these and ask these questions of the committee.

The article also quotes that the legal team does not think there will be a preemption violation because they are restricting people rather than guns. I am not a lawyer, but restricting "people" using a criteria of lawfully owned and carried firearms, is not limiting "people" it is banning firearms.

Thanks for your time.

Serpentine

[Jhaydeno]

Contact Michael Resnick, director of public safety, directly:

michael.resnick@phila.gov

I asked him how many of those 54 rec. center shootings were committed by a person with a PA LTCF. My guess is 0.... I then reminded him this proves criminals do not abide by laws and he will only be putting the law abiding citizens at greater risk.

Remember he's a lawyer, take what he says with a grain of salt (sorry GL001)!

[tmountjr]

Sent the following to Oh:

Dear Mr. Oh,

I'm writing to you regarding bill #130065, regarding the carrying of firearms in city-owned parks or rec centers. I heard your comments on the radio this morning supporting the right of properly-licensed owners of firearms and I thank you raising your concerns. While I understand there is an epidemic of gun violence in this city - a man was shot not 100 feet from my front door a few months back - it will not be solved by punishing those who seek to follow the law when carrying a firearm for their own personal protection. Furthermore, any action that Philadelphia takes apart from the laws found in PA Title 18 Chapter 61 may be in violation of 18 Pa.C.S. § 6120, which states, "No county, municipality or township may in any manner regulate the lawful ownership, possession, transfer or transportation of firearms, ammunition or ammunition components when carried or transported for purposes not prohibited by the laws of this Commonwealth." Surely there is another way to address gun violence without infringing on the rights of people who simply want to obey the law.

Again, thank you for your support in this matter.

The actual bill itself can be tracked here.

[Yellowfin]

It's Jim Crow mentality, nothing more nothing less.

[blueskiesPA]

serpentine--

Great letter. If you do not mind in the future I would like to use some of what you wrote, it that is ok?

Your letter was well written and well thought out.

[darkhunter]

If it passes it'll probably never be enforced, they're probably hoping to try to deter people from carrying in these locations, if it was enforced it'll be thrown out under preemption and then they'll have a lawsuit on their hands

[tmountjr]

If it passes it'll probably never be enforced, they're probably hoping to try to deter people from carrying in these locations, if it was enforced it'll be thrown out under preemption and then they'll have a lawsuit on their hands

A while back Philly passed "lost and stolen" all on their lonesome, and Seth Williams or Lynne Abraham or whoever was DA at that point all but announced (s)he would never prosecute it, precisely because of preemption. But you're right, I wonder how many people turned themselves in anyway?

[serpentine]

serpentine--

Great letter. If you do not mind in the future I would like to use some of what you wrote, it that is ok?

Your letter was well written and well thought out.

Yes, and thanks for the compliment. I actually felt I rushed it. I wanted to get it out quickly, then I bogged down at work.

On a side note, I received an email reply from someone, but it was addressed to someone else, with my original email to David Oh attached. The email was asking if the recipient "was receiving any of these yet".
Very strange. Obviously I was not the intended recipient. I looked up the individual and found him to be a business consultant previously affiliated with Oh.