Continuing the Local Gun Discussion . . . Supreme Court to Weigh in on Chicago's Handgun Ban . . . Will High Court Uphold Federal Law Over State Law? What Does this Mean for Pennsylvania Gun Owners?

When I wrote Semi-Automatic Weapons in Valley Forge National Historical Park . . . Do You Feel Safer? a couple of days ago, I could never have forecasted the interest in the topic.  Although admittedly surprised by many of the responses (50 comments on this topic!), I was fascinated by the strong opinions of many in this community.  The ‘right to bear arms’ topic has opened up conversations (and debates) among family members and friends.  I had intended to move on from this topic but I received several emails over the weekend encouraging further discussion.  I feel strongly that we learn from each other by exchanging ideas and information.  The evolution of Community Matters as a new informal communication channel can help to educate us, if we are willing to listen to each other.  Although I would be the first one to encourage lively debate, I would ask that you be respectful with your comments.

Several people commented on the June 2008  Supreme Court decision which struck down a handgun ban in Washington, D.C., and declared that individuals have a constitutional right to possess firearms for self-defense and other purposes. The Washington, D.C. lawsuit marked the first time that the highest court ruled that US citizens have a right to own guns for self-defense. The Second Amendment to the Constitution speaks of the right to bear arms in the context of a “well-regulated militia.” 

Over the weekend, we were out to dinner with friends at Majolica in Phoenixville (highly recommend!) and  spent much of the evening discussing the Second Amendment law, the new federal park gun legislation and many comments and opinion that were shared on this blog. 

There is a new Second Amendment Supreme Court case which will look at the handgun law in the city of Chicago.  The Supreme Court argument starting tomorrow will decide whether the Second Amendment — like much of the rest of the Bill of Rights — applies to states as well as the federal government. It’s widely believed they will say it does.

This new Second Amendment Supreme Court lawsuit was filed by an elderly, African-American Chicago resident who said he wants to defend himself.  Otis McDonald, 76, is suing the city over its gun ban, says he keeps a 20-guage shotgun at home to protect himself from the neighborhood gangs. But even if the court strikes down handgun bans in Chicago and its suburb of Oak Park, Illinois, that are at issue in the argument to be heard Tuesday, it could signal that less severe rules or limits on guns are permissible. An interesting aside to this latest lawsuit is that Chicago is President Obama’s hometown. The US Supreme Court justices will be deciding whether the Second Amendment right of every US citizen to possess arms for self-defense should apply to local as well as federal laws. The latest high court lawsuit will look at Chicago’s 1982  ban on handguns; determining whether federal decisions should apply to local law.

On the eve of this latest Second Amendment case, I was interested in understanding what the Pennsylvania State laws were in regard to gun ownership, age, restrictions, etc.  Although I claimed to be naive on the subject of local gun ownership in my last post, I researched Pennsylvania’s current legislation.  The following is offered to those who are also uninformed on the subject of owning firearms in Pennsylvania.  I don’t recall anyone mentioning the ‘open carry’ policy. 

Would you rather people have their guns out in the open, or concealed?  Do you think that the open display of weapons would help (or hurt) possible incidents of violence?  I am curious how the police feel about the ‘open carry’ policy . . . wonder if they would rather know that a person is armed?

Owning Firearms in Pennsylvania

  1. Do I have to register my firearms in Pennsylvania?
    No, in fact in Pennsylvania it is actually illegal for any government or police agency to keep a registry of firearms per 18 Pa.C.S. § 6111.4 (Registration of firearms). If you legally possess and bring your firearms into Pennsylvania or come into possession of the firearms legally, no further action is required.It should be noted however that all transfers of handguns in Pennsylvania are required to go through the Pennsylvania Instant Check System (PICS) and as such the Pennsylvania State Police keep a “Sales Database” of all handguns purchased within the Commonwealth. While almost any casual observer can see that this database clearly violates the spirit of 18 Pa.C.S. § 6111.4 (Registration of firearms), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court agreed with the Pennsylvania State Police that because the database is not a complete record of all handgun ownership (as people bringing handguns into the state do not have to register them), it does not.
  2. How old must one be to possess a firearm? Per 18 Pa.C.S. § 6110.1 (Possession of firearm by minor), the minimum age to possess a firearm is 18 with two exceptions:
    1. The minor is under the supervision of a parent, grandparent, legal guardian, or an adult acting with the expressed consent of the minor’s parent or legal guardian and involved in lawful activity.
    2. The minor is lawfully involved in hunting or trapping activities.

Is open carry legal in PA?

Answer: Yes, with some restrictions.

Anyone whom can legally own a firearm in the commonwealth can openly carry, on foot, with the exception of court facilities, federal buildings, motor vehicles and cities of the first class (Philadelphia)  While Pennsylvania has a specific law that requires a License To Carry Firearms for the concealed carry of a firearm, and the carry of firearms in vehicles, the law is silent on the legality of openly carrying a firearm in other situations; which if I understand the law makes it de-facto legal. 18 Pa.C.S. § 6108: Carrying firearms on public streets or public property in Philadelphia

  • No person shall carry a firearm, rifle or shotgun at any time upon the public streets or upon any public property in a city of the first class unless:

(1) such person is licensed to carry a firearm; or

(2) such person is exempt from licensing under section 6106(b) of this title (relating to firearms not to be carried without a license).


Add a Comment
  1. Personally, I would not want to carry openly in an urban setting. I do carry openly in remote ares (not always in the woods hunting.) I also carry openly in my home if surrounding activities are making me feel insecure.

    I read somewhere that 3% of gun owners in PA open carry. To me, it’s a right and I will support people who do it. More importantly, any right that gets taken away, through lack of use or otherwise, is a loss for gun right overall.


  2. There is a perception that if you know someone is armed (open carry), you would have to plan better how to attack, and that defending is harder because the criminal has more preparation time. The thought is if the criminal does not know that you are armed they are less prepared and could be caught off guard, it’s a preference based on perception.

    But I think it is more about perception because it would be difficult to think like a criminal when you’re not one. Until there are solid evident that open carry is in fact worse than concealed carry and make you more of a target to criminals, I don’t see this point as one way or another. I really doubt if a criminal is going to see an unarmed person and say, hey, I better not rob him because he may be carrying a gun; or hey, he has a gun, I can rob him if I pull a gun on him first.

    Cops are more vigilant because it’s their job to be on the look out for and prepare to deal with law breakers, and sometimes of the worst kind. Their guns play a major deterrent factor. They would have to be EXTRA vigilant if they have to carry concealed.


  3. Pattye you said “The Second Amendment to the Constitution speaks of the right to bear arms in the context of a “well-regulated militia.” That is not accurate , in Heller vs Washington DC the Supreme courts ruling clearly makes the right an individual right and not in the “context of a militia” not to split hairs but that has been the center piece to the argument. Those against the second amendment always said it only applies to a militia. Those who support the second amendment always argue “the right of the people” clearly used throughout the constitution makes it unquestionably an individual right. This is why Heller was so important.
    On another point, law enforcement keeps the sales record for a specific amount of time and then are to destroy them. There have been abuse’s in other state’s where they were stored and lawsuits were filed to have them destroyed. This issue goes back to the siege of Boston. When the British took the city they said they would allow citizens to leave if they left their firearms. Once confiscated they blocked all roads out. Registration is the precursor to confiscation.
    Our rights are printed in blood don’t forget that, there is a reason for them and one bigger then our petty debates on the issue. Rome lasted over 2,000 years and fell, nothing in life is certain.


  4. I received this in my monthly NRA update e-mail today. I thought it was timely. In reference to the new park laws, it states:

    •The new law affects firearms possession, not use. Laws regarding hunting, poaching, target shooting or any unlawful discharge remain unchanged.

    I thought it was worth posting for the discussion.


  5. Gio makes a good point. Although, the Heller case didn’t exactly spell out this right. The Supreme Court essentially found that there is some fundamental right exists relating to bearing arms and that the DC statute violated that right. However, the actual contours of the right was not really defined. That is where the battles will be fought – what regulations will and will not infringe upon this right. A general “right to bear arms” really does not answer many of the tought issues.


  6. Thanks Roger
    And “NRA member”, I am a Life member of the NRA and glad to see your post.
    Just one more point. Legal gun owners, at least the ones I know, usually belong to gun clubs and ranges. They are well versed in the use of firearms. Practice makes perfect. Criminals on the other hand are not that likely to go to ranges and clubs with an illegal weapon, using up ammo that they probably have trouble getting ( those with criminal records). My point is, if it came down to it my money is on the legal gun owner in an armed confrontation.
    Ok, one more point, guns are used often as a deterant to crime, these stats aren’t available or reported as no shot was fired.


    Roger Reply:

    I’m sensing a bipartisan Targetmaster outting…..and I agree, those who legally own firearms are the ones that have the knowledge of how to safely operate and use the firearms.


  7. Pattye thanks for continuing this forum on the second amendment. My passion’s are weights, guns and politics. I am glad to have a discussion on something other than politics.
    Keep up the good work.
    By the way I wasn’t kidding about taking you to the gun range :)


  8. If you don’t mind, I’m curious how many guns do you own?


    Bill L. Reply:

    That’s usually info most people don’t put out there for public consumption for any of a number of reasons. Whether its the fear of a government compiling firearms listings as alluded to above. Or just if the simple possibility that if someone puts it out there, then any resourceful bad guy doing research could find out. Some reasons border on paranoia, and some just border on common sense and it’s just noones business.


  9. I own 5, 2 are family guns passed down from generations and 3 are for sporting; target, skeet, and sporting clay. Also, I have taking approximately 60 hours of classroom and practical safety training. I have a permit to conceal, but only have a handful of times.


  10. Although I guess I support the Second Amendment, I think I’m like Pattye when it comes to this subject. I just had not idea that there were so many people with guns in this community. I never thought about it but based on the comments that many people have been making on this post and the last post on the same subject, I think that there is overwhelming support for guns in this community.

    Is this support because most of the people who are responding are REP, rather than DEMs. I wonder statistically what percentage of REP support guns ownership? Statistically I wonder how Independents fall out on this discussion?

    As I said I support people’s right to bear arms, but the thought that there are people in the grocery store, walking in the park, at the mall . . . all with guns is very surprising to me. Someone suggested a firing range, do we have one of those in Tredyffrin Twp? Am I correct that people can purchase guns and are not required any training/education? I’m not saying that responsible gun owners would not get training, I’m asking if it is required. You know like you have a drivers training before you get a drivers license? Does the same apply with guns? Probably not, which is what really scares me.


  11. No country has anywhere near the rate of gun ownership as in the United States and there is a correspondingly high gun homicide rate.

    I would like to know how the gun owners in our community respond to that statement?


    James Doubravsky Reply:

    Your statement is totally wrong. #1 We may have the most guns per person, but we do not have the largest number of hand guns per person. Israel does. #2 We are not the most violent nation, England is. A respected study by the Dutch established that . Australia is second. By the way, while England participated tn this study they have not published it in there country. England’s press like the press in the United States of America do not print any thing positive about gun ownership. If what you know about guns comes from the main stream media you are totally ignorant about guns.. As more states pass “Shall issue concealed gun permitis” the violent crime rate drops in each state. The comparison of violence between England and the United States flipped flopped. Starting after Florida passed it’s “Shall issue permitts” in 1987. Very simply put the more guns there ares in the hands of basic honest citizens the less crime there is. These are not opinions, but rather established facts. You can find them, but you have to look for them.


  12. I’m guessing I’m the first woman stepping into this testosterone-laced discussion, but it has helped clear up where I stand on this issue. Giovanni’s belief that “registration is the precursor to confiscation” is where I draw the line.

    It’s crazy! It is why I think the NRA is a dangerous propaganda machine, and that its members have been brainwashed to see the world as an armed camp in which we must all be armed and ready. But paranoia fuels gun sales….Those who buy into this must buy more.

    I’m envisioning people – overwhelmingly men – that I observed coming and going from a gun show at the Valley Forge convention center. They were a motley -looking bunch. I remember thinking ,”These bozos want to buy guns without any record of purchasing them. For what purpose?”

    It should be illegal. Own guns- as many as you want – but register every last one of them. How else can they be traced when criminals get their hands on them? How else can you cut down on criminals’ easy access to guns?

    I’m pretty sure one of you is a policeman. How about some answers?


    Bill L. Reply:

    Gun Shy-
    Thank you for illustrating my point once again of the stereotypical anti gun person that treats gun owners as if they are all ignorant hicks that need your all-knowing genius to look after us. We are all grateful intelligent people such as yourself are there to look after us.

    Draw the line at Giovanni’s explanation all that you want, but it makes it no less true. This is well documented.

    Thank you again for being there for us.


  13. Most gun owners are very quiet about it. It is not something we tell people about. I do not carry a gun regularly, but I have obtained a permit. I own 3 guns (a shotgun for shooting sporting clays, a rifle for competitive target shooting, and a handgun for self defense). I have taken multiple training and safety classes, and I store my guns unloaded and in a safe. The media have a stereotype of “gun nuts,” but nobody would ever guess that I’m the kind of person who believes in the right to own guns or who personally owned them. I’m just not very loud about my personal opinions or my politics. I do feel that the people who use guns to hurt others or who have accidental gun shootings are NOT those like me who own them legally. I cannot imagine that I would carry my gun into the state park, but I also don’t think it would be fair to say I couldn’t carry it if I wanted to. After all, the criminals aren’t going to obey the signs…only people like me who wouldn’t use the guns except to defend themselves or to save someone in danger. There have been plenty of cases of people using guns to save themselves or their children from attacks by wild animals in parks. I don’t see that as a potential problem in Valley Forge, but it could be a problem in parks out West. Just trying to provide a logical explanation for the new law.


  14. ANON-
    I would like to know what correlation you are attempting to draw? As has been mentioned here many times already, if you look at the crimes involving firearms, the overwhelming majority are carried out by illegal firearms. So the statistic you are throwing out there is just another of those soundbytes from the anti-gun crowd meant to “shock and awe”, yet in reality, contributes nothing to the validity of the argument.

    As was stated by someone in the other thread, look at the number of vehicle related deaths every year… Vastly outnumbers firearms (legal AND illegal), where are the protests to ban driving, stricter liscensing requirements, etc?


  15. It is also worth noting that the Pennsylvania Constitution addresses this topic in Article I, Section 21: “The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.”


  16. As I understand what has already been communicated, gun ownership is a right not a privilege, thus no training in the use of firearms or registration is/should be required. That said what could/should be done to encourage gun owners to seek training in the proper use, handling & securing of their weapons?

    With the assumption that gun ownership is a right. Does that mean anyone should be able to legally purchase/own a gun?

    Is anything required by PA law when it comes to reporting lost/stolen guns? If not, how do gun owners feel about that?

    When guns are carried in the open, are they permitted to be loaded?

    Where a gun owner is permitted to carry guns is a bit blurry for me, so can someone clarify… are guns permitted on school/college properties? Township meetings? Trains or buses?

    I recently read that VA now allows guns to be carried into bars. Where does PA law stand on that point? How do people feel about mixing alcohol & guns?

    What about requirements for securing guns in homes with small children… are there any? What about holding gun owners responsible if there is an accidental shooting because a gun is discharged by a child? Any thoughts?


    Lysander Reply:

    Various pamphlets on the rights and responsibilities of safe firearms ownership are provided to those who buy a gun in PA, or who acquire a concealed carry permit. Most manufacturers provide additional guidance and encourage owners to seek training in the proper use and storage of firearms.

    What follows applies in PA, and can vary by state:

    Yes, it is presumed that any competent adult retains the right to purchase, own, and carry arms. However there are many ways that right can be lost: for example, following a felony conviction. A license to carry concealed firearms can also be revoked by various authorities for cause.

    Guns can be stored and carried in a loaded condition.

    It is illegal to carry on grade school properties, and in most courts, federal facilities, and airport terminals.

    There is no law against carrying in bars.

    Owners are responsible for their guns. If they do not take reasonable measures to protect them from being misused they can and have been held both civilly and criminally liable for the consequences. Mishandling a gun itself can result in various criminal charges.

    I believe most gun owners consider it imprudent to carry while impaired by alcohol, and grossly negligent to store guns in any way that they could be found and handled by unsupervised children or easily stolen.


  17. Word to the wise,
    I know a guy who was in a bar talking about guns and what he owned. He was robbed, now his guns are in the wrong hands. Lets not forget there is a large value on guns especially on the black market.
    As far as tracing lost or stolen guns: if a legally owned gun is stolen obviously there is a responsibility to report it. Make, model, serial #… you know like when your car is stolen. That will enable police to ID that weapon should they come across it. To give the government that info and trust that one day they won’t be knocking on the door to collect them is absurd. The power of this country was designed to remain in the hands of the people, no government will take it from our hands on this soil as long as “the people” can defend against it. The biggest problem is to understand why the second amendment was the second. It is one of our most important rights. You have to look at the beginning of this country. There are a lot of books available to read and see just how insightful the framers were. Their understanding of the world is still spot on today, we can’t live in an illusion that things are different, they are not.
    3% property/income tax by the crown to pay down the debt of the French Indian war. What an outrage!!
    Look at the tax burden on everyone today. Now I don’t suggest a revolution but point out that government is not suppose to over power the will of the people. This is so much more important now then it was then because many forget and want to give up the power inherent to us all.


    Nona Reply:

    “There are a lot of books available to read and see just how insightful the framers were. Their understanding of the world is still spot on today, we can’t live in an illusion that things are different, they are not.”

    Especially spot on today was the framers’ understanding as expressed in Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution that a slave only counted as three fifths of a person.

    in case the sarcasm is lost in writing, my tongue is planted firmly in my cheek.


  18. I respect everything gun owners are saying. I believe that guns have stopped or deterred many crimes even if there are only sketchy stats to back that up.

    But why is there such resistance to going on record as gun owners? If you use the car analogy, every single car must be registered and insured – by law. Why can’t the same be enforced for deadly weapons?

    In my view, you should have to be licensed and get some training to be a gun owner. Just like a licensed driver.

    I don’t think gun owners are “ignorant hicks” as Bill L suggests. And I certainly don’t think gun-control folks are know-it-alls and geniuses, as he sarcastically accuses us of being. We just see that the current system is not working.

    Why don’t law-abiding citizens all register their guns, so that anyone else apprehended with one is in violation and subject to fines or jail time? It would make law enforcement’s jobs a whole lot easier and help get felons off the street.

    And it would not take any of your freedom away.


    Lysander Reply:

    Gun Shy: The reason gun owners resist registration is because historically it has been a precursor to confiscation. Well known examples include not only Nazi Germany but more recently in New York City, the UK, Australia, and New Zealand.

    Furthermore, registration costs money and does not help control crime. Canada is just now terminating a gun registration system they have run since 1993 at a cost of $2BB because it has produced no measurable benefits.

    It is very easy for police to determine whether an individual is allowed to possess a gun: They can call the same FBI-run system that dealers call before closing a sale to see if the person is a felon or is otherwise forbidden by law to possess firearms.

    It is also easy for police to determine whether a gun has been stolen by calling its serial number into the ATF. Likewise, they can tell just by examining it whether a gun has been illegally modified.

    If a gun hasn’t been misused, stolen, illegally modified, or caught in the hands of a felon, then there’s nothing else to check.

    So you are mistaken on two points:

    1. Registration of guns does tend to take away one’s right to keep and bear arms.

    2. Registration of guns does not make law enforcement’s jobs any easier.

    Finally, as has previously been noted, the right to bear arms for self defence is a right, not a privilege like operating vehicles on public roads. Suggesting the government should require licensing and training to exercise that right is as outrageous as saying that individuals who wish to exercise their right to free speech should get the government’s prior approval. E.g., are you licensed and trained to post comments on web logs?


    JudgeNJury Reply:

    Without taking a position on the underlying dispute, I just wanted to point out that the Supreme Court DOES allow the government to require those who wish to exercise their right to free speech to obtain permits in certain situations as long as the requirements for obtaining the permits are reasonable and do not depend on the content of the speech at issue: So it simply is not true that the government is prohibited from imposing reasonable requirements on one’s exercise of his or her constitutional rights.


  19. Well, there’s the crux of the argument – 2nd amendment champions see the right to own an unlimited number of guns of any kind as a God-given right.. while the rest of us believe to one extent or another that there needs to be some regulation of DEADLY weapons in the name of public safety.

    I guess it goes along with thinking that paying taxes infringes on our freedom, and answering 10 questions on a census form is an invasion of our privacy and…….before you know it ,we’re in Michelle Bachman-Sara Palin -land…..

    It’s interesting to me that a lot of the same people who so love their freedom to bear arms don’t believe women have the freedom to control their own bodies….but that’s an argument for another day…..

    To each his own. I’ve learned a lot from reading these comments. It’s time to agree to disagree on fundamental beliefs. One thing I have decided – you gun lovers are probably not a bad bunch. You care about your families and community’s safety. You’re ready to defend both.

    You just have some creative interpretations of the Constitution and its reasonable limits. No minds are being changed here…….


    Bill L. Reply:

    I was all set to agree to disagree right up until this line here: “You just have some creative interpretations of the Constitution and its reasonable limits. No minds are being changed here…….”

    There are no creative interpretations going. Simply revisionists ideas by anti-gun people who wish to abolish firearms.

    And I like your categorization again as the “2nd Amendment champions” being against “the rest of us”.

    As well as nice injection of political figure into the mix to further polarize.


    Gun Shy Reply:


    I’m not anti-gun as you categorized me, but I’m not “gun-ho” either. I honestly think there is a middle ground which does not infringe on your rights as a gun owner, but protects me from those who use guns to commit crimes. I don’t think that anyone eligible to buy a gun should be able to buy any gun manufactured with any armor-piercing bullets available. There should be limits.

    Re the Constitution, there will always be “creative” interpretations of it. Even our idea of an “activist” judge depends on our own views of the law as we believe the framers intended . For instance I feel strongly that five members of the Supreme Court just redefined the rights of a corporation to suit their political agenda. But I’ll bet there’s a whole group of people on this blog who believe otherwise – that any money spent by any individual or corporation (or union) is the equivalent of free speech and should not be limited.

    Re Palin and Bachmann – if the shoe fits……
    If you fiind either of these women remotely qualified to govern or legislate…what can I say…..maybe you’re thinkin’ with your gun…


  20. Gun Shy — not the only female posting here — and i understand your concerns. But i also know that fear is at the basis of most concerns about guns — and as long as you cannot regulate illegal ownership, I don’t see a point to regulating legal ownership. I do have a question — you don’t register guns, but do you need a permit to own one? “Gun permit” to carry? I am assuming yes — it’s just the inventory you don’t want recorded — and that makes sense — though please understand why it is frightening to people who do not own or want to own guns. Women “awfulize” and worry what if — which is why I do think women are less comfortable around guns…but if i believed I would be calm in the face of danger, i would probably have one for protection myself. My fear would be that the likely outcome would be the intruder would end up shooting me with my own gun…
    I appreciate this candor. It’s really very helpful.


    Bill L. Reply:

    Apolitical Observer-
    You do not require a permit to simply own a firearm. You are required to go through a background check in order to purchase one, each and every time you purchase one. You are required to have a permit for Concealed Carry. Which also entails a background check. I believe you are correct. Much of the concern from anti-gun advocates stems from a lack of knowledge WITH the subject.


  21. Maybe there should be licensing for freedom. A course on the responsibility’s of being free and what should be understood to keep us that way.
    Any of the gun owners I know take it very serious. No one is flashing them around or firing into the sky. They own several and pick which weapon to carry for different situations. They choose the right ammo and respect their responsibility. They are also some of the most patriotic people I know. That’s not to say those who don’t own weapons aren’t. The point is even if you don’t believe in owning firearms, have respect for the importance of that right and stop trying to take it away from those who choose to exercise it.
    There are no “creative interpretations” of freedom and each of our rights as free people under the Constitution. It is, what it is. The anti gun lobby are those that are using “creative interpretations” in an attempt to strip away our rights.
    This is my finally post on the matter, thank you all for the welcome debate. Good job Pattye!


  22. Bill L — one thing you need to remember about women — they MUST have the last word or the discussion isn’t over. Gun Shy — not that I need to know — but what do Palin and Bachman have to do with any of this? Bill L. is right — and correct — and your own righteous indignation is wasted in this argument. Because it’s not about “the rest of us” — it’s about ALL of us – and OUR constitution. I’m done too. But will someone answer some of my questions from above?


  23. Ok one more.
    “Gun Shy” I think I may have the answer for you. Lets make all guns only capable of firing a non lethal sponge rubber bullet. This way no one gets hurt and everyone can carry. Lets keep going, why don’t we get rid of the supreme court all together….after all according to you they are making decisions based on political agenda’s. God knows we have enough elected officials doing that. Hey while we’re at it lets eliminate any reference’s to guns from books and lock up anyone that speaks about them. That would put a lot of people in jail. Not to worry we’ll just raise taxes and build more prisons.
    All these scare phrase’s ‘Armor piercing bullets” what armor do you refer to…what bullets? “assault weapon” I guess that includes all black guns maybe we could make them bright yellow or pink. “AK47” “military weapons” “semi-auto”. All these phrase’s,…talk about propaganda, are all negative terms marketed and created by those who wish to disarm this country.
    Personally I would like to find armor piercing exploding rounds that release smiley face baloons….you know, for the range. :)
    Good night


    Pattye Benson Reply:

    Community Matters is successful as a social communication forum as long as the commentary is respectful of others opinions. I think we have all learned much from the gun discussion but it is now time to move on. Thank you to those who offered their opinions on this topic.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Community Matters © 2015 Frontier Theme