Misfiring Kenney doesn’t learn from experience

Our pathetic excuse for a retired-in-place mayor was given some space on the Philadelphia Inquirer’s letters page to plead (again) for an abridgment of your Constitutional right to own firearms.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court will hear oral arguments, says Jim Kenney, on Crawford v Commonwealth. “The court will decide whether to overturn the provisions of the Pennsylvania Uniform Firearms Act that preempt, or prevent, the city from enacting common sense gun measures in Philadelphia.”

“Common sense” is in the eye of the beholder, and is usually used to disguise something unpalatable. 

The Uniform Firearms Act provides that the state writes the laws on firearms. Why? To prevent a bewildering patchwork of conflicting laws in towns across the Commonwealth. 

The case will raise objections from what Kenney calls “gun extremists who will tell us that local laws restricting possession violate Constitutional rights, most prominently the Second Amendment right to bear arms.”

This doesn’t overturn the Second Amendment, says Kenney, the noted Constitutional scholar.

Wait! He is not a noted Constitutional scholar, he is just a cheesy Woke politician who lives in his own reality. He doesn’t learn from experience, because the city has wasted time and money in the past trying to subvert 2A – the Second Amendment. In case you have forgotten it, here it is:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Note the last four words: Shall not be infringed.

The U.S. Supreme Court, even before the conservative majority, had upheld that right and knocked down local laws that infringed on that right. The court decided that the  “well-regulated militia” phrasing referred to the people themselves. 

But wait — it gets even worse for Kenney in the Pennsylvania state constitution.

Article I, section 21: “The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.”

Note the last four words: Shall not be questioned.

That is even stronger than 2A, and is as plain as the somewhat large nose on Kenney’s red face.

Faced (no pun intended) with such straight-forward language, the spineless mayor resorts (again) to the race card.

“There is nothing ‘uniform’ about a law that allows gun violence to disproportionately impact [here it comes] communities of color and people living in poverty,” he says.

So here he blames the gun, rather than the perpetrators, in the “communities of color,” where the perpetrators are almost always Black. And the perps seldom use firearms acquired legally, so piling another law atop existing law is unlikely to change anything. 

We have people living in poverty across the Commonwealth, but they don’t have murder rates like Philadelphia. 

What Kenney doesn’t understand is that people in Philadelphia need firearms for self defense, and that basic right is guaranteed in both the U.S. and Pennsylvania constitutions.

I know his game plan.

He is hoping the 4-2 Democratic majority in the state supreme court may see it his way.

But they can’t, not if they respect the plain language of the constitution. 

17 thoughts on “Misfiring Kenney doesn’t learn from experience”

  1. The interpretation of the phrase “well-regulated militia” is certainly in question by many people in this country, the high court decision notwithstanding. Their decision is inarguably the current law of the land, but that does not make it correct or right by any means. Legalized abortion was ALSO the law of the land for some 40+ years, and now it is not. Was abortion “right” for those 40 years but “wrong” now? Of course, we know neither is the case.

    Indeed, we know that the term “militia” had quite a different meaning in the 1700s, and of course, the weaponry available at that time was quite a different kettle of fish than it is today. The Constitution was meant to be fluid and changeable, and one could certainly opine that some changes are now in order given the aforementioned weaponry.

    Further, one could plausibly argue that the term “well-regulated” itself is at issue here. Is people’s ownership of weapons that can fire hundreds of high-impact ammunition REALLY regulated in ANY way? If so, I’d like someone to explain to me exactly how they are so regulated. Should the right to bear arms include bazookas? Tanks? Nuclear missiles? In reality, these are the types of weapons that would be required to battle one’s own government/army, should it decide to “attack” it’s own citizens — a concept that I think is believed possible, and perhaps even likely, by some of the radical elements in our society, but one that is patently ridiculous to most rational thinkers. I mean, where is the line drawn?

    Just some things to ponder.

    1. As you stated, it IS the law and must be observed.
      You say the Constition is “fluid.” I agree only to the extent the framers included the ability to amend. That makes it fluid. Otherwise, stick with the text.

    2. The “right” to an abortion was not an enumerated right enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. The right to bear arms and forbidding the governments to infringe on that right is an enumerated right. A review in civics will remind you that there’s a process to amending the Constitution and described within it. And if you find a good sale on a tank or a missile, pass that information on. 😉

  2. A non sequitur argument, as abortion was never mentioned in the Constitution, whereas arms are. The right to kill unborn babies was a creation of a sick supreme court. And forget the word ‘choice.’ The focus isn’t on ‘choice,’ it’s on THE choice: keep the child, or kill the child.

    If you don’t want guns in the hands of the people, amend the Constitution.

  3. Many of our city’s urban traumas could be greatly reduced if the $4.6 billion in public school taxes we pay to the operate the public schools went to a new focused mission to graduating 100% of the students to be knowledgable, informed, articulate, balanced, civic minded and ready to step to the next rung up in life. For the $4.6 billion we already pay in school taxes.

    It requires a very reasonable change in the culture of schools right at kindergarten and then in every grade all the way to graduation. It must be done.

    Ask, how many of those who are shooting, killing, smashing and grabbing, carjacking, raping, sucker punching, selling drugs and generally costing society hundreds of millions in property destruction, and police, court and jail costs, in addition to the $150,000 we already pay for 12 years of free education for all students, graduated from high school?

    How many of those causing the rest of our citizens so much trauma graduated from our high schools which we are already paying $4.6 billion for, for everyone of our students to step up in their lives?

    100% graduation to step up in life.

    1. An excellent point, you would never hear a politician taking this position or supporting it in any way.

      Education and jobs is the only cure for the rampant violence. Gun control will not impact the body count In Philadelphia.

    2. $150k wouldn’t cover 12 years of schooling in Lower Merion Twp. Make school funding more equitable. Give poor kids the same education as the wealthier kids.

  4. Hopefully this bill will not pass. It is similar to giving a heart attack patient in crisis a band aid as a cure. There are sufficient laws on the books both State and Federal that if enforced will reduce the number of illegal shootings in our city. Incarcerating illegal gun toting criminals is part of the solution. Kenney’s request is pie in the sky and wishful thinking. Even if this proposed law gets by it will not reduce gun violence.

  5. The Constitution is really a meaningless document when it can be reinterpreted to suit the political beliefs of the Justices.

    1. You have a point. But, as they say, democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.
      Israel has no constitution and is now facing a crisis because the government is trying to weaken the court. As some Dems want to do here — Biden NOT being one of them.

    1. This happened after I wrote. Even the Democratic attorney general saidnhenwon’t enforce a clearly unconstitutional executive order. The “gun extremists” will get this reversed… fast.

  6. I have to remind myself that one of the first things A. Hitler did after taking power was co-opt the courts. He made the law what he wanted the law to be to help accomplish his satanic goals.

  7. Enforcement of existing laws might be a good place to start. That said, “real” enforcement is the answer, and it takes a commitment from everyone. I am not certain everyone possesses the fortitude to carry out the required commitment. A very recent example is sentencing of the young man who carjacked U.S. Congresswoman Mary Gay Scanlon’s vehicle. This was a federal crime and there was a mandatory minimum of 7-1/2 years in prison. Even though the defendant was only 19 years old when the crime was committed, this was not his first rodeo- previously compiling a pretty impressive rap sheet including other weapons violations. In her letter to the federal judge, Congresswoman Scanlon did not seem totally committed to the enforcement end of things.

Comments are closed.