Is the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania the Rule of Law in this state or not?
Our Commonwealth Constitution begins with a Declaration of Rights and Section 21 is the Declaration of our right to bear arms. It says
The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State SHALL NOT BE QUESTIONED.
Our legislators take an oath of office to uphold the Commonwealth Constitution and the simple wording of Article 1, Section 21 is pretty clear. This, however is not stopping Senators Art Haywood and Vincent Hughes from ignoring it with their legislation, SB 1029.
Under this legislation, before you could purchase a firearm for your protection you would have to complete required mandatory training prior to even applying. This will include a Firearm Eligibility Card that requires $50 upfront and $30 to renew. Then there’s administrative fees, Sheriff’s Fee, and other assorted fees.So you can’t just go to a gun store, purchase a gun, and then take training — it has to be done before you even are allowed access to the firearm.
Isn’t this questioning a citizen of this commonwealth’s right to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State? If so, aren’t the legislators in violation of their oath of office? Perhaps, more importantly, why aren’t other legislators or their own constituents holding these two legislators accountable for attempting to by-pass the Commonwealth Constitution in violation of their oath of office.
In order for such a law to take place, a Constitutional Amendment would be required and I’m fairly certain that these Senators know what the chances of such an attempt would be. It would be defeated by the people in this commonwealth but apparently the words penned in Philadelphia that became part of our Declaration Of Independence dealing with consent of the governed is also something these two legislators do not want to adhere to.
The inability of law enforcement to enforce exiting laws (many of which already violate our Constitution) is not reason enough to attempt to criminalize current law-abiding gun owners; nor is it a reason to to create new bureaucracies filled with data-mining in the background checks associated with this bill.
SB 1029 was introduced October 9, 2015 without any fanfare and then fast-tracked into the judiciary committee. As I read SB 1029, it appears that it seeks to limit the ability to gain access to training, obtaining a firearm or a permit to carry.
If these Senators wish to question our ability to own firearms then do what is supposed to be necessary…..amend the constitution and get the consent of the people to do so.
If we are (and I do believe we are) endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights and, as our Declaration of Independence states; “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,” then a government that violates the consent of the governed is an unjust government and I think we all know what the Declaration and our Commonwealth Constitution has to say about that. For those that do not:
Declaration of Independence:
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Article 1-Political Powers; Section 2: All power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority and instituted for their peace, safety and happiness. For the advancement of these ends they have at all times an inalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think proper.
It is legislators who seek to by-pass the Constitutions in order to exert more controls over us that made these clauses necessary.