Gunning down several misconceptions on SB5
To the Times: In response to the very poorly written and grossly misleading editorial regarding the passage of Pennsylvania Senate Bill 5 (SB 5) by Terry Rumsey, I find it necessary counter his provocative and inflammatory comments regarding this issue.
The general concept of the article once you cut through all of the antigun political palaver is it is against the passage of SB 5 on the premise “that it is designed to punish local cities, towns, and counties that pass gun safety ordinances that may contradict current state law”. I wonder if Mr. Rumsey took the time to read SB 5 or even understand the existing state laws.
Senate Bill 5 was introduced by at least 24 members of the Pennsylvania Senate and is designed to accomplish the following as paraphrased directly from SB 5:
1) Protect law-abiding people who endeavor to protect themselves, their families and others from intruders and attackers without fear of prosecution or civil action for acting in defense of themselves and others.
2) It further upholds Section 21 Article I of the Constitution of Pennsylvania, which guarantees that the “rights of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state shall not be questioned”
3) Commonwealth law currently limits regulation of firearms, ammunition and ammunition components by political subdivisions in order to further the right guaranteed by Section 21 of Article I of the Constitution of Pennsylvania
4) Unlawful regulation of the firearms, ammunition and ammunition components by political subdivisions and the threat of citation, prosecution or other legal process posed by unlawful regulation interfere with this right.
5) This interference with the right guaranteed by section 21 of Article I of the Constitution of Pennsylvania unduly inhibits law-biding people from protection themselves, their families and others from intruders and attackers and from other legitimate uses of constitutionally protected arms, including hunting and sporting activities.
SB 5 goes on to stipulate that the General Assembly has always intended and continues to occupy the entire field of regulation of all facets of firearms and that any and all local regulation are null and void. It further provides for legal relief for any citizen adversely impacted by any such ordinances and laws established. The word “punish” is not used anywhere in the document.
Mr. Rumsey’s erroneous contention or should I say fabrication is that this law will punish municipalities for adopting gun control measures is not correct. Existing Commonwealth Law presently limits regulation of firearms and associated materials to the state level, a reality the City of Philadelphia should remember because of previous litigation. SB 5 legislation reaffirms that mandate and establishes protection for law-abiding people who endeavor to protect themselves. From previous editorials I have the perception that Mr. Rumsey seems to have a “extremist” propensity not to present all the facts regarding his concerns about gun safety, i.e. gun control.
I suggest Mr. Rumsey focus his efforts on walking his dog, hopefully on a leash in Glen Providence Park, rather than his concerns about “gun safety.” Please contact your Pa. state senators to support Pennsylvania Senate Bill 5.
“SB 5 goes on to stipulate that the General Assembly has always intended and continues to occupy the entire field of regulation of all facets of firearms and that any and all local regulation are null and void.” — Richard Julason