Gov. Tom Wolf declares 'state of emergency' in Pa. opioid epidemic

[normanvin]

Y'all need to find better doctors.

Yeah thats the priblem

[fallenleader]

Y'all need to find better doctors.

not many decent choices. especially with specialists.

where we live <see right> we drive either to allentown/lehigh valley area or out to wilkes barre for any specialists.
good god finding a rheumatologist for my wife was a nightmare.

[PocketProtector]

Ok, just to get back on the beaten path, since the gov declared the state of emergency all the statutes \ procedures written into that law now go into effect for 90 days or until the state of emergency has been lifted by the gov.

Including this?

§ 7721. Operation on streets and highways.

(a) General rule.--Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, it is unlawful to operate a snowmobile or an ATV on any street or highway which is not designated and posted as a snowmobile or an ATV road by the governmental agency having jurisdiction.

(b) Emergency and bridge crossings.--A snowmobile or an ATV may be operated on highways and streets:

(1) During periods of emergency when so declared by a policy agency having jurisdiction.

So by law we can now legally operate our snowmobiles and ATVs throughout the state of PA. on highways and streets for 90 days or until the gov rescinds the order?

AHA !!! I thought there was nothing in the SOE that would stop the crisis.......dang, I was freakin wrong !!!

[fallenleader]

who wants to bet that he rescinds the SOE pretty quickly?
not just because of the link but because of all the little nuances that come with SOE's
https://blog.princelaw.com/2018/01/1...-pennsylvania/

In an article published today – Gov. Wolf: Opioid declaration doesn’t affect gun rights – Governor Wolf’s spokesman J.J. Abbott is quoted as stating that I am “flat-out wrong” in relation to the impact of Governor Wolf’s Opioid Proclamation on firearm rights, as set forth in the two articles that I have written on the topic. The first article is: With a Stroke of a Pen, PA Governor Wolf Limits Firearm Rights by Proclaiming State of Emergency. The second is: Are the Great American Outdoors Show (GAOS) and State Game Land Hunting in Jeopardy as a Result of Governor Wolf’s Proclamation of Emergency?

As neither Mr. Abbott nor the Governor (or anyone from his Office for that matter) has reached out to me and provided me with the seemingly canned statement that they are providing to reporters, for purposes of this article, I will rely on the statements reported in the Public Opinion article, which, as I address below, are nothing but smoke and mirrors and fail to address the real concerns, including the impact to the Great American Outdoors Show.

But first, since Mr. Abbott felt it necessary to call into question my legal aptitude, it is necessary to address his and the Governor’s qualification to provide legal advice. As they are surely aware, the unauthorized practice of law is a criminal offense, pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 2524, where the first offense is a misdemeanor of the third degree and a second or subsequent offense is a misdemeanor of the first degree. In reviewing the attorney lookup of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, it does not appear that either Mr. Abbott nor Governor Wolf are licensed attorneys. Hopefully, someone within the Governor’s Office with an actual juris doctorate has reviewed the legal issues.

Regardless of whether the Mr. Abbott or Governor Wolf are attorneys, or whether someone within the Governor’s Office who is an attorney reviewed the legal issues, it is important for the the citizens of the Commonwealth, as well as the non-citizens who will be attending the Great American Outdoors Show, to know that any statement by the Governor as to the applicability of the law to a set of facts is immaterial and does not preclude a court of law from convicting you, even if your conduct comports with the conduct approved by the Governor.

But let’s put all of that aside and look at exactly what the canned statement said. As reported in the article:

The governor’s declaration does not allow for law enforcement to confiscate firearms, and the governor worked with law enforcement to ensure that his actions to fight this epidemic have no impact on citizens and their firearm rights.



And what does this have to do with my articles? While I absolutely mention the prohibition on government confiscation found in Section 6107, at no point did I ever claim that the Proclamation authorized the seizure or confiscation of firearms. In fact, in my first article, I explicitly stated that “Section 6107 specifically prevents any form of confiscation of firearms, accessory or ammunition from occurring solely as a result of a state of emergency.” Seemingly benefiting from my article, the Governor’s statement then goes on to corroborate that “[t]he law specifically does not allow for any firearms to be seized, taken or confiscated as a result of the disaster declaration.” So, at least this portion of the statement is merely an attempt to distract the reader from the actual issues raised in my articles. But what about the rest?

The statement goes on to declare that:

A declaration specifically has no effect on people with a concealed firearms license, someone using a firearm with an active hunting license or someone open carrying a firearm if actively engaged in self-defense.

For a minute, let’s set aside the Superior Court’s decision in Commonwealth v. Anderson. How exactly are my articles and legal conclusions “flat-out wrong”? In my first article, I specifically addressed that individuals with licenses to carry firearms (LTCFs) were exempt, as were individuals who were actively engaged in self-defense. And in my second article, I specifically addressed hunting on state game lands. Once again, it seems as though the Governor’s Office has to rely on my articles to determine the law and then in their statement, although stating I am “flat-out wrong,” agree with my legal conclusions.

See how that works? They claim both Senator Scott Wagner and I am providing misinformation, then agree with the information I provided, while sidestepping the actual issues and concerns that I raised. So, let’s look at the issues that I have raised and which their statement fails to address.

Commonwealth v. Anderson

As it runs afoul of their narrative, the statement fails to address the Superior Court’s en banc decision in Commonwealth v. Anderson, where the court held that the “exceptions” found in Section 6106(b) are “defenses” that need to be proven at trial. Thus, any individual claiming “exception” under Section 6106(b) can be prosecuted and forced to argue the exception as a defense to the prosecution. This is extremely important since it would apply to anyone claiming exemption under Section 6106(b), including hunters and many of the vendors and attendees of the Great American Outdoors Show, as discussed further below. It appears that the Governor’s Office did not feel is necessary to advise everyone of this extremely concerning aspect, especially in light of it running contrary to their contention that the Proclamation has “no impact on citizens and their firearm rights.”

Open Carrying Absent an LTCF

Once again, the statement is devoid of any mention in relation to individuals who open carry a firearm absent an LTCF. In Commonwealth v. Hawkins, 547 Pa. 652 (1997), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court explicitly acknowledged that

[i]n all parts of Pennsylvania, persons who are licensed may carry concealed firearms. 18 Pa.C.S. § 6108. Except in Philadelphia, firearms may be carried openly without a license. See Ortiz v. Commonwealth, 545 Pa. 279, , 681 A.2d 152, 155 (1996) (only in Philadelphia must a person obtain a license for carrying a firearm whether it is unconcealed or concealed; in other parts of the Commonwealth, unconcealed firearms do not require a license)

As a result of Proclamation and interplay of Section 6107, individuals, who do not have an LTCF, are now prohibited from open carrying firearms throughout Pennsylvania. So, just how does the Proclamation not “impact [] citizens and their firearm rights,” Mr. Abbott?

The Great American Outdoors Show

As I discussed at length in my second article, there are grave concerns for the vendors and attendees of the Great American Outdoors Show, since all of them, absent an LTCF, pursuant to Commonwealth v. Anderson, would have to argue as a defense to prosecution their exemption under Section 6106(b). More importantly, almost all of the attendees and a number of the vendors, absent an LTCF, would not meet any of the exceptions found in Section 6106(b). Interestingly, the statement is completely devoid of any mention of the Great American Outdoors Show and how the Proclamation effects it.

Offer to Debate

Since the Governor’s Office felt it necessary to call into question my legal aptitude and I assume an apology will not be forthcoming to Senator (and future Governor) Scott Wagner and myself from the Govenor’s Office, I would welcome the opportunity to debate Governor Wolf on the effects of his Proclamation on the firearm rights of the citizens and visitors of the Commonwealth, but I would suggest that he first dust off his non-existent juris doctorate and brush up on the Uniform Firearms Act before the debate, especially since the law is clearly contrary to his Office’s statement.

Contact Governor Wolf’s Office

For those of you who value your inalienable rights, I would suggest that you contact (phone: 717-787-2500 and fax: 717-772-8284) the Governor’s Office and respectfully let them know that you do not appreciate your rights being infringed and their less-than-honest statements on the impact of the Proclamation in relation to your firearm rights. If Governor Wolf is such a staunch supporter of the Second Amendment, as his Office is claiming, I anticipate that by Monday, at the latest, he will be calling upon the General Assembly to repeal 18 Pa.C.S. § 6107 and 35 Pa.C.S. § 7301(f)(8).



For those unaware, “interpretive jiggery-pokery” was utilized by the late Justice Antonin Scalia in King v. Burwell, the landmark decision on the Affordable Care Act, where he referred to some of the details in the case as “pure applesauce” and criticized the court’s “interpretive jiggery-pokery” analysis as the only way the Affordable Care Act could be found to be constitutional.

building the wall, one block of text at a time.

[normanvin]

not many decent choices. especially with specialists.

where we live <see right> we drive either to allentown/lehigh valley area or out to wilkes barre for any specialists.
good god finding a rheumatologist for my wife was a nightmare.

Not to mention that when you do find one they move on quickly. Just found a decent knee guy. Yep, he is moving to texas.

I also learned yesterday that for some reason our new insurance is good at the giesinger in wb but not accepted in the giesinger in danville.

[fallenleader]

i hear ya. my wife has some progressive inflammatory disease, RA or something, don't know a year into it because appointments are so hard to come by and so few dr's etc.etc.

soon we'll be like the other socialist countries, flying to other nations for care by cash...

[eyecanshoot]

I believe the SOE gives the governor free reign to spend taxpayer money. He doesn't have to stick to a budget when dealing with an "emergency". I'm probably not going to do it but if you looked up his campaign contributions I would expect to see a trend of donations from pharmaceutical companies, employees, or individuals heavily invested in the industry.

[Exbiker]

Try handing out lethal doses, and plainly labeling them as such. The junkies will still take it.

I lost a son to addiction, probably twice the man you are. I'd love to meet you in person. It is too bad the many on here that are suffering and have family members that are suffering feel they can't speak up.

There some pics of the beginning. But hey you're so tuff (sarcasm) that you would have done the surgery with no opioids then for a month when they came to the house daily pulled out all the sponges washed out the wound that went down to the shin bone and reattached the 24 hour wound vac, rather than pain meds you would have tuffed it out too (more sarcasm) Then unlike all those morally weak people that wind up addicted you would just bop through life sharing your asshat wisdom.

384781_2163431567600_1300928230_31882505_739144844_n.JPG

[ImminentDanger]

Compassion is a great thing. It is the reason millions of Americans gave over $280,000,000,000 in charitable contributions in 2016. That's BILLIONS OF DOLLARS! Personally & without coercion. I'm certain that a reasonable share of that money was donated for or used for helping addicts of all types, including those abusing opiods.

The American people (somewhat represented on this board) are very compassionate in their behavior. Most people have a sense of gratitude for their own success, including financial success. They contribute financially to benefit others who are less fortunate, down on their luck and temporarily struggling.

What most Americans scorn is the attitude of entitlement in the face of what appears to be a lack of effort of individuals to correct their own circumstances. There are untold millions of stories of those who struggle forward despite great odds against them and succeed to better their lives. Most LEGAL immigrants have such stories. One of the founding principles of this country was the freedom to make your own choices - but then it also expected citizens to have the responsibility of shouldering the consequences. Personal Responsibility has always been a bedrock of the personalities who have succeeded in spite of the hardships.

Addicts are seen as belonging to the former category rather than the latter. The perception is that their addiction is one of WON'T choose the solution rather than CAN'T find a solution. Their current economic status aside, their path is trending toward chaos & destruction, yet they will not make the self-sacrifice to suffer for the solution. Rather, they will enjoy the 'high' even though the deepening low is equally as certain. They choose their addiction for the benefits (mental, physical, social) rather than choosing against it, even knowing its detriments, present or future, personal or familial or societal.

Despite a sense of compassion for addicts, you cannot save them against their will. They have to want to be clean & sober & responsible & willing to suffer the pain to get there. It's unAmerican to force your will on the lives of other people - even those you deem desparately in need of your good will. It's very American to give a helping hand to those who have chosen to better their lives and the lives of their families.


When you try to move compassion from the personal approach to the organizational approach, you are trying to put a square peg into a round hole. Governmental compassion or corporate compassion is an oxymoron. These organizations have no soul - they cannot have compassion.

In the attempt, true compassion is distorted from a heartfelt concern for another human being into exploitation of a human crisis for the financial gain of the organization. Power & money are the goal whether directly by collecting taxes or contributions or through the temporary attention paid for the long-term image benefits.

The state of emergency that exists in Pennsylvania and elsewhere regarding addiction (opiod or otherwise) is that this country has lost it's way. Most forms of addiction are riding on the back of the promotion of irresponsible behavior - an escape from reality - a faux sense of euphoria - an acceptable, temporary disappearance - whether from prescription drugs, alcohol, tobacco, gambling, marijuana, food, sex or on & on.

America has been going down this road for some time. Society no longer teaches the concept of present suffering for later gains; or teaches self-reliance and self-responsibility over dependence on the state; or teaches that organizing compassionate people for solutions is not the same as manipulating people's compassion for political gains. Lacking proper compassionate approaches, it's no wonder we have a crisis.

But it is not a crisis that government will solve. Whether a war on drugs or a full embrace of them, neither is the true solution that is afforded by personal responsibility on the part of the addict and a helping compassion from those near at hand.

That's a long way to say:
The governor is part of the problem - not the solution. And our Rights are wholly irrelevant to him.

Either we get Constitutional Carry, or in the meantime, we need to separate our gun rights from this mad dash for Federal Money through Faux States of Emergency.

...

[Exbiker]

But it is not a crisis that government will solve. Whether a war on drugs or a full embrace of them, neither is the true solution that is afforded by personal responsibility on the part of the addict and a helping compassion from those near at hand.
That's a long way to say:
The governor is part of the problem - not the solution. And our Rights are wholly irrelevant to him.

I agree with one thing the government won't solve the crisis in fact the government generally creates a bigger crisis when it gets involved.