SB 1250, the Marriage Act, has become the latest tool for the anti-gun movement.

[larrymeyer]

Both e-mails from the PA Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs


SB 1250 (Marriage Act) has been tabled, so no further action will be required at this time.

SB 1250, the Marriage Act, has become the latest tool for the anti-gun movement. Several anti-2nd Amendment amendments have been filed so far.

Calls and emails needed now to your Senator asking them to vote NO on any amendment dealing with firearms. The bill is on today's calendar and could be given 1st consideration as soon as this evening, and then they could start voting on the amendments anytime thereafter.

You can review the amendments filed so far at http://www.pfsc.org/SB1250.pdf

Find your Senator: http://www.legis.state.pa.us/


The anti-gun folks are using the Philly police officer killing to push their agenda. Some are trying to say that if Philly had been able to enforce their gun laws, the killing wouldn't have happened. While our sincere sympathy goes out to the officer's family, we all know that banning the sale of firearms to law-abiding citizens would not have stopped this career criminal from illegally obtaining a weapon.


Op-Ed from Sen. Connie Williams on Assault Weapons:

LIFE, LIBERTY AND THE PURSUIT
By Sen. Connie Williams

In the Fall of 2004, just prior to the expiration of the federal ban on assault weapons, I introduced legislation in Pennsylvania to ban the sale of these types of weapons in the Commonwealth. Senate Bill 1216 of 2004 died for lack of action, which led to Senate Bill 533 in the 2005-06 Legislative Session (which also died in Committee) and Senate Bill 48 in the 2007-08 Legislative Session (which I'm realistic enough to recognize will never see the light of day).

To date, I've been told that there is no need to ban any type of gun – the gun does not kill, the person using the gun kills; I've been told that this is just a Philadelphia problem; I've been told that banning any gun is an infringement upon people's constitutional right to bear arms. I hear a lot about enforcing the laws that already are on the books, but I also think that we should reinstate some of the laws that used to be on the books; laws that worked.

Not one of the people opposed to passing any type of new gun laws in Pennsylvania have yet to tell me how we can use this Constitutional right to bear arms to protect the innocent victims of these crimes. Paying for more jail time is a bandage that we place on the wound after it is inflicted.

If this is just a Philadelphia problem, then why was the federal ban put in place in 1994? Was that just for Philadelphia?

The federal ban became law in 1994, following a string of mass killings committed by criminals with assault weapons. The law may not have been perfect, but it served as a deterrent. Statistics show that when the federal ban went into effect in 1994, violent crimes declined by 26.5 percent (from 1994 to 2001).

As I said, I am a realist and I understand that Pennsylvania is firmly on the side of gun rights, which explains why efforts in the House of Representatives earlier this year failed. So, I issue a challenge to gun advocates: come up with some responsible ways to keep guns out of the hands of our children and criminals.

In the end, I don't want to hear rhetoric, I want some hard statistics that show less innocent victims and police officers were killed in Pennsylvania. I want to know your plan to keep guns safely and responsibly locked up so they don't fall into the wrong hands. And I'd like you to promise families of police officers everywhere, that your new way of doing things will protect their loved one when he or she is working in the line of duty to protect you.



Rendell speech annoys legislators
http://www.pennlive.com/news/patriot...400.xml&coll=1

Governor uses tribute to slain officers to promote gun-control legislation
Tuesday, May 06, 2008
BY CHARLES THOMPSON
Of The Patriot-News
At a ceremony honoring Pennsylvania police officers slain in the line of duty last year, Gov. Ed Rendell seized the bully pulpit to make a renewed call for gun-control measures.

But afterward, Rendell's message left some lawmakers feeling just plain bullied.

With several gun-control opponents in the Legislature looking on, the governor declared it almost hypocritical for elected officials to attend the annual Law Enforcement Memorial Day service when they haven't, in his mind, done everything possible to protect police officers.

Rendell said that every year elected officials in Washington, D.C., and Harrisburg attend these ceremonies, "and then we go back in this building ... and we do an inadequate job of passing laws that can truly protect the men and women who so gallantly serve."

To really honor the fallen, Rendell said, "we will suck it in, do the right thing, and pass laws that will give our police officers -- who are out in the street protecting us every day -- the maximum amount of protection we can."

Read more:

http://www.pennlive.com/news/patriot...400.xml&coll=1

[ThunderingWind]

What do these anti-gun amendments have to do the main purpose fo the bill?

I thought the government rule sonly allowed amendments that pertained to the bill, not these non-related issues.

[pex]

Surely you know that firearms destroy the sanctity of marriage.

[Johannes_Paulsen]

The marriage bill was a waste of ink to begin with, and these amendments were nonsense on stilts. More unnecessary government intrusion.

Hope they both stay dead.

[Siobhra]

I think the only amendment the Marriage Act needs to read "that neither of which is divorced".

That would make the bill read in total.

A Marriage shall consist solely of One Man and One Woman, neither of which is divorced."

Jesus never said anything about gays, it was too trivial. But he had a lot to say about how wrong divorce was. Which means divorce is worst than gay. And if the gays have to "walk the walk" then the straights had damn well walk with them.

It will never happen because the people who are anti-gay marriage are not doing so because of a religious belief but rather their own bigotry.

[billamj]

I think the only amendment the Marriage Act needs to read "that neither of which is divorced".

That would make the bill read in total.

A Marriage shall consist solely of One Man and One Woman, neither of which is divorced."

Jesus never said anything about gays, it was too trivial. But he had a lot to say about how wrong divorce was. Which means divorce is worst than gay. And if the gays have to "walk the walk" then the straights had damn well walk with them.

It will never happen because the people who are anti-gay marriage are not doing so because of a religious belief but rather their own bigotry.

For once, Siobhra, I am going to have to disagree with you. With everyone screaming about the separation of church and state, I still haven't found that in the Constitution, there can be no religious conotation(sp?) to that type of law. Personally, I think that government should get out of the marriage business, it should strictly be a religious event. That being said if they are going to be in the business of marriage I think it unfair if they do not have, if not marriage, something identical for people in the gay community.

[NineseveN]

snip...Personally, I think that government should get out of the marriage business, it should strictly be a religious event. That being said if they are going to be in the business of marriage I think it unfair if they do not have, if not marriage, something identical for people in the gay community.

Holy cow man, we're agreeing again.


Maybe the sky is falling this time?

[Johannes_Paulsen]

For once, Siobhra, I am going to have to disagree with you. With everyone screaming about the separation of church and state, I still haven't found that in the Constitution, there can be no religious conotation(sp?) to that type of law. Personally, I think that government should get out of the marriage business, it should strictly be a religious event. That being said if they are going to be in the business of marriage I think it unfair if they do not have, if not marriage, something identical for people in the gay community.

Yet again, Bill, I'm going to have to agree with you.

If I recall correctly, states didn't get directly into the business of offering marriage licenses until the turn of the 19th/20th century, and now it's just a money-making business for them. Truly, marriage has nothing to do with the state, and no need of the state's sanction for the institution to exist.

[WhiteFeather]

For once, Siobhra, I am going to have to disagree with you. With everyone screaming about the separation of church and state, I still haven't found that in the Constitution, there can be no religious conotation(sp?) to that type of law. Personally, I think that government should get out of the marriage business, it should strictly be a religious event. That being said if they are going to be in the business of marriage I think it unfair if they do not have, if not marriage, something identical for people in the gay community.

billamj you are just not looking in the right constitution that a judge found this mysterious powers, "the separation of church and state",its really in there, its just NOT the Constitution for the united States of America.

http://members.tripod.com/Sludge/ussr.htm

{ Adopted on: 7 Oct 1977 }
{ ICL Document Status: 7 Oct 1977 }



Article 52 [Religion]

(1) Citizens of the USSR are guaranteed freedom of conscience, that is, the right to profess or not to profess any religion, and to conduct religious worship or atheistic propaganda. Incitement of hostility or hatred on religious grounds is prohibited.
(2) In the USSR, the church is separated from the state, and the school from the church.

Article 53 [Family, Marriage]

(1) The family enjoys the protection of the state.
(2) Marriage is based on the free consent of the woman and the man; the spouses are completely equal in their family relations.
(3) The state helps the family by providing and developing a broad system of child-care institutions, by organizing and improving communal services and public catering, by paying grants on the birth of a child, by providing children's allowances and benefits for large families, and other forms of family allowances and assistance.

Article 54 [Personal Freedom]
Citizens of the USSR are guaranteed inviolability of the person. No one may be arrested except by a court decision or on the warrant of a procurator.

Article 55 [Home]
Citizens of the USSR are guaranteed inviolability of the home. No one may, without lawful grounds, enter a home against the will of those residing in it.

Article 56 [Privacy]
The privacy of citizens, and of their correspondence, telephone conversations, and telegraphic communications is protected by law.

If you spend the time to read the Soviet Union - Constitution , the Russia govenment didn't obey their constitution anymore than our does today, IF you go read the orginal oct 1917 one and other changes, its even a bigger laugh or was it another cruel joke to its citizens.

AKA "reasonable" or "common sense" restrictions on the 2nd amendment that our government supports.

[Johannes_Paulsen]

And the commie constitution clearly defined marriage as being between a man and a woman!

Perhaps the "marriage amendment" crowd was KGB-supported?