Pa. Legislature considers reckless gun law
Let’s imagine a situation. A fight breaks out on a Wednesday evening between rival gangs on a street in Allentown. Police quickly arrive on the scene and attempt to quell the violence.
They urge the competing gangs’ members to calm down, to no avail. Tempers flare, and what was a beef between gangs transforms to a confrontation with the police.
An officer gets shoved, and he and another officer restrain and handcuff the assailant. Two bystanders record the situation on their phones. Another officer believes he sees a gang member pointing a gun. He reacts and shoots, killing a young man of color. Amelee follows.
No gun is immediately recovered from the scene, but in the confusion of the melee it’s impossible to know if it was picked up by someone at the scene, as the police officer maintains he was sure he saw the gun. Photographic evidence is unclear.
Time is needed to sort out what actually happened. But time is in short supply. Film of the shooting spreads virally on social media. Groups that have been protesting police violence for some time are already mobilized. They announce a major protest for Saturday. But right-wing militias are also mobilized and they announce a counterprotest, same time, same place.
Both sides recruit hundreds to attend, and both sides indicate they will come with lots of firearms, most especially assault weapons with large capacity magazines.
Were this to happen right now, a responsible governor or municipal executive could declare a state of emergency. Under such an emergency declaration, the carrying of firearms upon public streets and on public property is
generally prohibited except to licensed carriers. But by the time this event occurs, the Pennsylvania legislature has enacted HB1747. This bill eliminates this prohibition.
The armed camps converge. Police try valiantly to separate the factions but are simply overwhelmed. Punches are thrown. Then a shot rings out — it’s
never determined who fired first — and a true firefight ensues. By the time order is restored, 26 people are dead, and dozens wounded.
Among the dead: six police officers caught in the crossfire.
An imaginary situation? Yes. But unrealistic? Absolutely not.
That’s especially true in our current
hyperpartisan environment, though the potential to be suddenly plunged into an emergency situation is always with us. It could be triggered by many different kinds of political disagreements, like perceived voter suppression or voter fraud, financial meltdown, a public health crisis, or a natural disaster in which supply chains of food and medicine are disrupted.
And we all witnessed this three years ago in Charlottesville, Virginia, where Nazi-aligned and other hate groups came armed to the teeth and marched shouting: “Jews will not replace us.”
Whenopposing groups meet in a volatile emergency situation, the presence of firearms makes a dangerous situation far more dangerous.
That our state legislature would even consider such an unwise, impetuous policy is another sign of how ideologically extreme our political leaders have become.
Unfortunately, this bill up for consideration and well along the way toward enactment. It was passed by the House in June. Its first major move in the Senate occurred on Sept. 9, when it was passed out of the Judiciary Committee on a party line vote.
Not only does this bill rescind the heretofore automatic ban on public carry of firearms following an emergency declaration, it makes any attempt to rationally limit the carrying of firearms in an emergency wholly illegal.
Emergency situations in which public carrying of firearms are banned are rare in Pennsylvania life. But should they arise, it is reckless and irresponsible to enact a law that deprives elected leaders, entrusted with protecting the public, of the already limited means they can utilize to defuse an explosive situation.
If anything, we should be strengthening, not weakening, their ability to control firearms in a Charlottesville-type crisis.
In the Lehigh Valley, state Sens. Pat Browne, Lisa Boscola and Mario Scavello have an important decision to make. If they believe that Black Lives Matter, that All Lives Matter, and that Blue Lives Matter, they should protect public safety, and vote no on HB1747.