Controlling Guns in Philadelphia
A violence-plagued city bumps up against a rural state's law
Homicides were rising twice as fast as in other large cities—an average of one gunshot murder a day. If those statistics from Philadelphia in 2006 were terrifying, the numbers in City Council member Darrell Clarke's district were even worse. On some blocks, the chance of getting shot was roughly 1 in 50. The problem seemed clear: The city needed tools to keep guns away from violent criminals.
But Clarke has since learned that in Philadelphia, as elsewhere, tightening gun laws is no simple task. Pennsylvania, whose Constitution explicitly gives citizens a right to defend themselves, is among a majority of states that forbid cities to pass gun laws stricter than those enacted by the state. A challenge to these so-called pre-emption laws—laws pushed by the National Rifle Association—has made Philadelphia a major battleground over the Second Amendment.
The debate took off amid the violence of 2006 when a group of politicians, including Democratic Gov. Edward Rendell, asked the state legislature for a hearing on the problem. The Republican-led body did so only after the Philadelphia Democrat chairing the House appropriations committee threatened to hold up the state budget if it didn't.
The divide that emerged mirrored the demographic split over gun control nationwide. Urban politicians wanted laws limiting handgun purchases to one a month and requirements that owners report lost or stolen guns. And they called for an end to the pre-emption law. But Pennsylvania, where some school districts mark the opening of hunting season with a holiday, is a largely rural state. And rural legislators opposed the measures.
Change of heart. Last year, with Democrats in the statehouse, the gun control advocates regrouped and, borrowing a move from the NRA playbook, took polls. They made a difference. Republican Rep. Kate Harper of suburban Philadelphia initially opposed the gun limit, advocating instead tougher enforcement of existing laws. But when she saw that her constituents largely favored the limit, she changed her mind. Countering, Republicans proposed hiring 10,000 more police officers. "Guns aren't the problem," says Rocco Ali, president of the Pennsylvania Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs. "The problem is the criminal element." Once again, the bills died.
Undeterred, Philadelphia passed laws in May targeting handguns and illegal purchases. The city can't implement them, of course. So the council has filed a lawsuit to challenge the pre-emption law. Even if they fail again, council members say they hope a court case will change legislators' minds.
Reader Comments
Violent criminals in Philadelphia
"The city needed tools to keep guns away from violent criminals." So is the liberal media finally admitting that Philadelphia is full of violent criminals? That's good because acknowledging a problem is the first step to correcting it. So you'd think the next step would be to lock up the violent criminals, but no. The liberals would rather take the guns away from those who have never committed a crime in their lives - and never will - than hold the low-life scum in the inner cities accountable for their actions.
Putting the 2nd FIRST!
As a Jewess in the US, I want to remind everyone that America wasn't won with a registered gun. Furthermore, criminals are stopped not by talk, but by FIREARMS. That is why all REAL Americans put our 2nd Amendment FIRST!
Philly isn't in Texas
As a retired Philly policeman & father of a victim of random gun violence perpetrated against him in the city of Philadelphia, I strongly agree with Councilman Clarke, Governor Rendell & THOUSANDS of law abiding citizens that the one gun a month & reporting of lost or stolen guns law is appropriate, & necessary. Everyone disagreeing should move to Texas. We will definitely not miss them!
Philly isn't in New Jeresy!
Dear Philly Policemen
It sound like you are confused in what state you live in. This is PA not New York, D.C., New Jeresy,Illinois,Taxachusetts, Or California! If you could look past your liberal paradise taht is Philadelphia you will realize that there is a whole other place out there called "Pennsylvania" and we have laws and rules that protect our Constitutional 2nd amendment rights Not to mention our PA Constitution states:
Power of Suspending Laws
Section 12.
No power of suspending laws shall be exercised unless by the Legislature or by its authority
And
Right to Bear Arms
Section 21.
The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.
You should try readin our Constitution and PA Constitution that you took a oath to uphold as a police officer. If not maybe you should move!
Philly prosecutions NOT!
You would think a police officer if anyone would know that the Philly Prosecutors are the deans of plea bargain. When they arrest a criminal illegally in possesion of a firearm they almost never charge them with a gun crime. They simply cry for more gun control laws. They only have interest in pretending to care so that voters will wrongly think they are doing something constructive in the gun crime arena. Why would any fool think restricting good citizens would reduce crime. Vote these fools out of office, quick...
Ugh.
While we're considering illogical solutions, why don't we take driver's licenses away from gang members to stop drive-by shootings?
I'm really getting fed up with all this nonsense.
Definately not in Texas
As a retired Philly policeman, you surely know that the criminals do not buy their guns from a licensed dealer, or at gun shows. More laws regulating the purchase of guns will have no effect on crime. If Philly were in Texas, the criminals would be incarcerated, and many would meet their demise at the end of a needle.
Great point Corey, although I was not aware of how plainly and boldly written the PA constitution was written. I like your point that those who want to trample on the rights of law-abiding citizens should pack up and move to the peoples republic of new jersey, or the socialist republic of california.
Let's point to another startling FACT
If you want to cut the PA crime rate in half...sell Philly to Jersey. The fact is that 1/2 of the crime commited in PA is in Philly alone. There is virtually no murder in 95% of PA communities. It aint the guns cause most of those communities far outnumber Philly in legal gun ownership
Who cares about Philly?
I live in Pittsburgh, and I will be damned if I will give up my rights because of criminals in Philly. They are Philly's problem. NOT MINE. NOT PITTSBURGH'S.
Where we are headed
Liberals will not stop until we are disarmed and dependant solely upon government for protection and the necessities of life. Government for govenment, people for government. Paradise lost, freedom extinguished. America's great experiment in freedom and democracy reduced to a footnote in history. We will not be safe from each other or government, but the government will then be safe from us....
They just don't get it
When liberals decided to make an issue of gun control hung on ( and still are) like pit bulls. You have to give them credit for their persistence even though it is totally misguided. Their fear and mistrust of the American people is exceeded only by their lack of logical thought. As in other states and cities where liberal mindset takes presidence Philadelphia has embraced the idea that it is only through the false precept of total disarming of of the civilian population will the country be safe. Yep....They just don't get it.
It's not guns that kill people, it's lack of values
When are people going to wake up? Rural PA has a much higher rate of gun ownership per capita than does Philadelphia. So why do we not see rural Pennsylvanian's running around gunning each other down in the streets? Murders every time we open the newspaper? People getting mugged and killed for the change in their pockets? I will tell you why. It's values! Here in rural PA, we actually value life, we go to church, we teach our children to respect and love other as we expect to be loved and respected. we are taught to respect firearms and handle them safely. We spend countless hours with our family shooting and hunting while appreciating each others company. As a family. Some day I hope that the politicians in Philadelphia will be honest with themselves. It's not the guns, it's the culture of violence and gangs. The lack of respect for life and liberty. Until then, I guess it's just easier to blame the guns.
gun rights
I grew up in MD as a gun owner and a hunter every time you turned around they where taking away more of my rights i ran a car shop in baltimore after being robbed at gun point twice i called the state police about getting a pistol permit guess what i was turned down for it they said if i was found to be carrying a gun at work ii would be arrested
i cant tell you how pissed i was i did move to PA and got my carry permit in 3 weeks god bless this state always remember too vote.
Anti-Gun Rights Bias
Yet another biased, anti-gun rights article from Ms. Schwartz.
Mindless Fearful Citizens
What's scary are the citizens who actually think that passing laws forfieting their own constitutional rights will somehow solve the crime problem. How do you get to these people before they create a new Nazi Germany in the U.S.A. ??
Opinions Stated as Fact
The debate should not be about values.
There are no deer in the inner city. Philadelphia should have the right to adjust their gun control laws as a city, and this does not need to change anything about rural PA.
Gun control laws are useless without prosecution, and the Philadelphia Court System needs to be improved so that criminals are the ones that get prosecuted, and streets become safer.
Blame inanimate objects
like guns and all you get is a change of which inanimate object to blame when the Criminals change weapons.
Kaine killed Able with a ROCK, does that mean we should outlaw rocks? Tell me how you would do that?
Gun control ALWAYS leads to confiscation from honest citizens and many times then leads to genocide. Look at Africa, every nation that has registered legal weapons soon cionfiscates them and then some group (mostly government sponsored) starts killing another group. They use guns, knives, machetes, and whatever else is available.
Without a gun you are a Slave, WITH a gun, you are a Citizen.
controlling guns in philadelphia
If you are not free to defend yourself, you are only free to be murdered. That is what the dems want- us to be killed at work, in bed, school- where ever they can find Americans. Remember- the global warming's cure is to cut the population in half. Dems are the global warming scaremongers. They are evil. There is nothing wrong with the USA that cannot be cured by simply getting rid of the evil thieving fascist traitor murder pig democrats!! Supporters of gun control are guilty of the murders of disarmed innocent Americans. We must stop treating it like a difference of philosophy and recognize the evil for what it is.
Arm&get'm.
reply to comment by Mr Jaskolka
As a retired police officer, did you not take an oath to uphold and
defend the Constitution? Did you not read it first? Or don't they teach that down there in Philly? Both the US and our state Constitution GUARANTEE us the right to keep and bear arms. So liberals like you, clarke and slick eddie want to live in a place where only criminals and cops have guns, maybe you should move to England or Australia where the crime rate is skyrocketing.
The history of gun control
During the 20th Century it was GOVERNMENTS, not criminals or terrorists, who committed the most murders. In addition, severe gun control (or outright gun bans) preceded all of the most notorious cases of governmental abuse, as happened in Ottoman Turkey, Nazi Germany, the former Soviet Union, China, and Cambodia. The number of gun control advocates who (apparently) believe that this can never happen here is frightening. While the possibility of such tyranny seems remote in America today, we must never forget the history of gun control and the lesson that it provides.
Of course, gun control advocates also refuse to acknowledge that all of the empirical research on the subject (e.g. studies by the National Academy of Sciences, John Lott, Kates & Mauser) indicates that measures such as waiting periods and one-gun-a-month restrictions do not reduce violent crime or murder, which is the ostensible purpose of all gun control. I am astounded at the ability of liberal academia to simply ignore the type of credible, empirical research that they typically would embrace.
Lets give
Can some gun rights advocate tell me what is wrong with limiting a law abiding, responsible adult to buying 12 guns a year? How many guns does one need to own to defend him or herself? Does it not make sense that maybe, in some cases, this limit will prevent a irresponsible person who is eligible to buy a gun from arming a lot of other irresponsible people who should not have guns in the first place?
Response to Dave of NJ
This has been analyzed in various studies, and such laws have never been linked to a reduction in violent crime. If the government cannot demonstrate a clear public interest in infringing on freedom, then it should not do so. You would likely howl if the government proposed limiting the number times you could contact your elected representatives, or limiting the number of opinion letters you could have published in your newspaper, or limiting any other exercise of civil liberties. One-gun-a-month restrictions sound good to some folks, and they have been implemented in several states and in other countries, but such laws have never been shown to benefit public safety - which is the ostensible purpose of such laws.
The fact is that gun control only affects those of us who are not inclined to commit crimes in the first place. Gang members, cocaine traffickers, and meth lab operators will always be able to get guns. Criminals, by their very definition, do not obey the law.
I respectfully suggest that educate yourself - do some searches for: National Academy of Sciences study of 2004, Professor Gary Kleck, John Lott, Don B. Kates and Gary Mauser, and the Cato Institute. You will find proper, empirical studies proving that gun control is ineffective at reducing violent crime.
Yikes!
Wow, these comments are so off base and truly frightening. Nothing like some guy from a town of 2000 people (probably less) telling the 5th largest city how to run itself. I really hope most of the comments posted are from the same guy who has too much time on his hands. And nothing like dragging this into a bipartisan argument and how the liberals are always the issue. But i digress, here are some things to keep in mind:
1. All Philadelphia is asking is TO CHANGE THE GUN LAWS IN PHILADELPHIA. As far as the city is concerned, the rest of PA can buy all the guns they want and play cowboys and indians all day. the request is to limit the guns in Philly. I still can't figure out why people in the rest of PA choose to dump on Philly when most of PA's economy is built off of Philadelphia. Without Phildelphia, the rest of rural PA would lose half the value on their properties and would be in some trouble.
2. And is the request that outlandish? Can you not get by buying only one handgun a month? and is it that bad of an idea when your house gets robbed and someone steals your guns that you tell the cops in the report that you had 2 handguns stolen? I hardly think this tramples on your rights. No one in Philadelphia suggests people can't have guns, not even close.
there are a dozen more reasons to at least discuss this, but I will wait to hear people's views on these 2 points. no one in Philadelphia believes this will solve crime, but it won't make it worse.
To Dave of NJ
Here are a few reasons:: 1 There are no limits on how many knives you can buy a year and people still get stabbed to death . 2 There are no limits to how much alcohol you can buy a year and more people die in alcohol related crashes than shootings.3 There are no limits on how many cars you can buy in a year and people still get killed in car crashes. 4 There are no limits on how many baseball bats you can buy in a year and people still get beaten to death with them.. Liberals like yourself always want to take everything away from the law abiding citizens and always want to give the criminals the benefit of people not being able to defend themselves or equalize the "playing field".Those who are irresponsible people who are eligible and are buying for those who are not are also criminals who have just not been caught yet.I don't think you are intelligent enough to understand this.
Dave from NJ
Why a person want more than one handgun a month is irelavent, it is not the goverments place to say what we can and can not do. I mean were does it stop what big brother can tell you what to do? Does it really stop there, the answer is "no it doen't!" there allready telling us where we can and can not smoke, what we are allowed to eat and not allowed, what kind of cars we can drive, what kind of light bulbs we can get, and the list goes on and on and on. And I'm sure your saying "So what!" Its for our own good, right? For whos good? For a ever big nanny goverment to look after us like were a bunch of dumb, mindless childern who need looked after? C'mon! Were are given rights and Liberty under the Constitution thats says we can do without big goverment in our way. To answer your question I would buy more than one gun a month because I am a collector and because I can (for now) also if I have to say it again read the Constitution and also I know your from NJ and don't go by our constitution, but ours simply states:Right to Bear Arms
Section 21.
The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.
So infact to say I can't buy 2 guns in a month goes against the Constitution and is unlawful for that matter!
So I hope that cleared that up for you. If not well, you'll never get it!
No giving!
"When the people fear the Government there is tyrrany, when the Government fear the people there is liberty"
Thomas Jefferson
It would be a terrible shame The people of this country voted their own rights away.
responsible
Dave
A irresponsible person shouldn't have a gun. Then the responsible preson should have as many as he wants whenever he wants.
I dont live in the NE, and probal'ly dont know all the problems you deal with. Simple solution- anyone who uses a firearm in a crime, put them in jail a long time. 10-15 or more years or more. Their criminals who care nothing about anyones life but their own.
Lets give NOT
What should be very clear is the term "limiting". Anyone following this subject knows that if we allow a "reasonable" number of 1 gun a month will see it could also be "reasonable" to allow 1 gun a year, 5, 10, and you see how this ends up. It is notable that this letter originates in N.J. where hollow point bullets are outlawed for being more dangerouser than ball. Now that is reasonable isn't it?
the right to defend yourself
I was born in the bronx nyc so i learned at an early age how to defend myself by any and all means necessary.I was beaten up and robbed many times once by four puerto ricans who wanted my leather coat,they didn't get it.Another time by two blacks they pulled a knife on me(when i was going to school)good thing i had my own knife and they ran.I am now in my late forties and i have a concealed weapons license to carry a fire arm.you don't ever want to use it but it makes you feel safer that you can and have the right to protect yourself.That right should never be taken away from you, NEVER.Criminals don't follow the gun laws we have how why would they follow any new gun laws.Protect our second amendment,for our safety.
To Mike in PA
Dave, get off your elitist high horse. Gun owners don't just live in the sticks. We're everywhere; doctors, lawyers, engineers....we span all classes and social groups.
I live right outside of DC - a bigger urban area than Philly by far.
you people are all cowards
First of all anyone who wants a hand gun for defense against governmental tyranny is a moron. You'll need a rifle. What we are trying to do here in Philly is not limit rifle purchases to one per month but hand gun purchases. And in actuality any of the really good weapons that would be of any desirable effect in defending yourself from the government are illegal (fifty cal. machine guns, grenades, rpg's, etc.). So your precious second amendment rights are really of no value.
In addition all these people I see here posting comments about how "you don't want big government coming in and taking away your rights." Well I got news for you people. Your rights have already been stripped away via Patriot acts one and two and these new wire tapping laws which have been put into effect over the last couple of years. So go ahead keep voting republican. By the way the reason I call you "cowards" is not because your scared to fire your gun or even for that matter afraid to die but because you are all too cowardly to look in the mirror and logically think about yourselves the world you live in and how bad you're really getting screwed by these politicians who wrangle your votes with their "good old boy" demeanor. If you did take my advice and look yourselves in the mirror you would come to the realization that you are a hypocrit and hopefully you would take one of the fifty useless hand guns you purchase every month and, well take hint.
Gun control
OK we have heard from every side of the arguement, now it's my turn. I am not for absolute gun control but I am for the abolishment of handguns because they are manufactured for one reason and only one reason- TO KILL HUMAN BEINGS!
Hunters can still have their rifles because it's kind of hard to conceal a hunting rifle on your person walking down the street. Handguns are hard to spot on somebody when they are being carried on the streets. I know my idea is near impossible to enforce because there are millions of guns on the streets already not to mention the gun lobbyists who are blowing their stacks right now reading this ready to fight people like me tooth and nail. My opinion is just that- food for thought.
you people are all cowards
Isn't it funny how these liberals all see the second amendment as
"your rights" and never "our rights" ? I guess when you concider
yourself a Comunist, you have no rights, and they don't wan't you to
have any.
Same availabity as police officers
I think citizens should be allowed the same basic equipment as standard police officers, as a minimum. The environment in which they work is very similar, the training can be replicated, and, having shot for the second time this year, I have already practiced more than several agencies require of their officers. Other firearms may be more limited, but still purchasable, as today.
The two laws in suggestion, particularly the gun-a-month idea, are really not that logical. Except for the speed of reload or the possibility of failure, there is no reason 1 Glock is any different than 10 Glocks. You can only shoot one at a time (ok there is the gun in each hand but it is very ineffective). This means that limiting the number of guns to one does not make things any safer. The second suggestion, requiring citizens to alert law enforcement that guns were stolen, does nothing either. It clears the former owner's name and allows law enforcement to add up the stolen guns but does nothing to help recover the gun or keep it from being used for other violence. Am I missing something here?
These laws do almost nothing to help solve the problem, but they make it more difficult for law abiding citizens. First, you can only buy one handgun a month, extend it to every-other month. Then once a year. It is a slippery slope that there is no reason to get on. Remember in DC it is legal to have firearm that is licensed, only they do not license them anymore so it is an effective ban. The same could happen here. It also limits owners who are either robbed of their guns, or use their guns for self-defense from replacing what they lost. Secondly, if you have laws specifically for a certain city, it is more difficult for those trying to follow them. Case in point, I live in Georgia which has a state supremacy law, meaning only the state can set rules pertaining to firearms. That means the laws are uniform throughout the state, meaning there are no laws that are different in Atlanta versus Waycross. Uniform laws allow me to follow them and so exercise my freedom. Now counties are allowed to limit the discharge of firearms to range or self-defense but not to limit when or where they may be carried.
I wish that we could get rid of all violence, firearm and other, but that is not going to happen anytime soon, as far as I can see. I do not want mental cases to purchase firearms, nor criminals, but we already have something in place to help with the latter and are working on the former. There is no way to determine what someone will do with a firearm except what they have done so background checks do help with legally purchased gun but lumping all citizens in with criminals is really not going to alleviate the problem. Remove those from the population that can not be expected to abide by the rules and punish them, not me, and do not take from me what may keep me and my family from harm.
Why would criminals want gun control ?
I've read what you had to say and I wonder do you realize how long it takes you or your brothers in the long blue line to response to a 911 call ? If it takes you 60 seconds in those 60 seconds who responsibility is it to protect my life or a life of a family member ??? MINE OF COURSE. Unless you can bring the dead back to life I don't understand how you can argue for gun control
I read that Rep. Cherelle Parker, D-Philadelphia, said Graterford state prison inmates told her last week that reporting of lost and stolen guns would reduce violent crime. Sure they did because if they didn't have to worry about a citizen on the street having a gun. They could be even more violent. And some DA will plea bargain their case down. And tell you that the law doesn't want revenge tough that your son is laying in the street with a knife in his back because he was going to the store at 9 pm. He should have been huddled in the house hoping someone doesn't kick in the door.
If you honestly believe that Taxes laws are wrong I suggest you compare them to DC, NY, MD or NJ.
And Yikes when you say "I still can't figure out why people in the rest of PA choose to dump on Philly when most of PA's economy is built off of Philadelphia. Without Phildelphia, the rest of rural PA would lose half the value on their properties and would be in some trouble."
Who is it that are ask to bail out Philly ? Septa ? Here where I live we don't have public transposition as most of PA doesn't. However in order for you to get around my tax dollars have to go to Philly. And it's corrupt politicians oh thats right they may not have found Ex Mayors brother guilty yet. A police chief and mayor that want to tread on my right by a stop and frisk policy that volitions my civil right not even the Federal government can do that without a warrant . I guess the rest of the state will be ask to pay for the lawsuites that will bring (OPS that Philly and all they want to do is protect citizens.)
gun control
There are already many many laws that go on every day being unenforced. enforce the laws that are already on the books and the crime rate will drop.
point no. 1 will always be criminals do not follow the law. they do not go to a gun shop and follow the laws to purchase a gun.
Philly law
Let the police and courts do their jobs and enforce the laws that are already in place. Arrest and PUNISH offenders. There is no need to alter the law, criminals are criminals, Philly isn't special. By following the law of the state, let law abiding citizens choose to legally defend themselves.
RE. dan of PA
50 cal, machineguns, grenades, RPG's, Tanks etc... Are not illegal in PA. Granted they cost alot and normal everyday people cannot afford them but they are not illegal in the great state of PA.
The reason Philly cannot make up its own laws is because a little thing called the PA Uniform Firearms Act. Which prohibits local municipalities from making up their own laws.
Whoever suggested PA sell philly to jersey spoke my mind.
When Arrested for Gun Violations in Philly...
Pennsylvania law 18 Pa. C.S 6105(c) prohibits people illegally or unlawfully in the United States from posessing, using, controlling, transferring, manufacturing, or obtaining a license to posess, use, control, transfer, or manufacture a firearm in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
My question is: When a person in Philadelphia commits a gun-related crime in Philadelphia (or anywhere in Pennsylvania for that matter) is their immigration status checked by the police?
Let"s cut the Number Of F.F.L.s Licences out : no renuals To Roge Retailer Gun Dealers do Straw Undehanded Conceal Handguns Sales under the Table sales to Criminal Gangs in Druge Gangs Criminals Groops too!!
1. Tell the Police Commissor to cut off F,F,L,s Licences of (type-01/01a Applications off ;not procresseses it too. The Roge Retailer Gun Dealers , are Devisos in Illegal Gun sales to any Street Criminals , In Druges in norcoxtis Drugs too!! Solution Is: don't issed applications to renewed there licences or State Licences is issued by the Country Sheriffis Department ; to sell Handguns only too!! State Licences are cut off !!! Renuals Applications Are cancel too!! Roge Crooked Retailer Gun Shops, Sporting Gunshops , Pawn shop Junk&gunshops Dealers is Type-01a F.F.L.s Licencs & State Licence is a Type-01a to only to pawwn Shops &Guns shops only too!! Theses Gun stores Roge gun dealers i n City of Phila.City to were Gangs Groups Selling Drugs An sealing Guns out of Guns Stores too!! This is True!! let's Cut down some of the Gun dealers Stores out too. To stop stollen Guns getting on the streets too!! agree!!
Add your thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our comment guidelines.advertisement
Tired arguements
Philadelphia only has to look as far as DC to realize that gun control is not the answer.
Stricter penalities for criminals who commit violent crimes with firearms is a far better deterant.
Gun control exists only to restrict the rights of law-abiding citizens. After all, if criminals obeyed the law, they wouldn't be criminals, right?
Mar 07, 2008 12:09:25 PM [permalink] [report comment]