Supremes Throw Shade At Philly DA In Gun Case

Supremes Throw Shade At Philly DA In Gun Case –The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, heard this morning, Sept. 13, a plea to overturn numerous state laws that prohibit municipalities from enacting independent firearm ordinances.

The hearing was at Philadelphia City Hall, one of the three venues used by the court.

Stanley Crawford et al vs Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, alleges that the state laws hurt minorities by preventing big cities from keeping guns out of poor neighborhoods.

Lead plaintiff Crawford is Black. His son was killed in a shooting, Sept. 8, 2018, in Philadelphia’s Rawhnhurst section.

The plaintiffs also say the state laws violate Article I, Section 1 of the Pennsylvania Constitution which says that “(all) have certain inherent and indefeasible rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty.”

Their reasoning is that one can’t enjoy life if one lives in fear. Bad people on the street with guns make people afraid, they say.

And if only people would do what they want, unicorns would bring us all lollipops.

The plaintiffs also claim that gun violence is a health crisis

The plaintiffs were represented by Lydia Furst of the City of Philadelphia’s Law Department and Benjamin David Geffen of The Public Interest Law Center,.

The Democrat-leaning court was surprisingly unsympathetic to their arguments. Several justices wondered if they weren’t asking the court to set policy rather than address constitutional concerns.

Even more surprisingly — shockingly actually — was the shade thrown by the court at those Philly officials tasked with keeping the peace. Most of the shade came from Justice Kevin M. Dougherty and Chief Justice Debra Todd.

Dougherty and Ms. Todd wondered why the plaintiffs didn’t address their concerns about crime control with city officials.

District Attorney Larry Krasner was not cited by name.

But did he have to be?

Dougherty made it a point to say he was the only Philadelphia resident on the court.

Supremes Throw Shade At Philly DA In Gun Case
Attorney Josh Prince before the hearing

The defendants were well-represented by Democrats, also surprising. Matthews S. Salkowski represented the General Assembly and a person whose name we missed the Attorney General. They gave solid reasons for not letting Philadelphia and other places set independent firearm policy. Republican Senate Pro Tempore Kim Ward had her own representation, who also made strong arguments.

Attorney Josh Prince who filed amicus curiae on behalf of Allegheny County Sportsmen League and Firearms Owners Against Crime was an observer. He thinks the state laws are likely to stay in place.

The plaintiffs struck us as sincere. If they overcome this bizarre blind spot that has convinced them that their opponents are bad people indifferent to murder, much division would end.

Gun rights supporters are very much opposed to murder, let us note.

The 1994 law passed by the Pennsylvania General Assembly compelled Philadelphia to grant concealed carry permits in the same unburdensome way the rest of the state did. Philadelphia homicides fell from 432 in 1995 to 292 by 1999, and stayed under 400 for 20 years.

Granted things have changed but, well, Larry Krasner.

Note at this link that there were but 150 homicides in Philly in 1960 and the city had about a half-million more people, and there were far fewer gun restrictions.

And nobody wants mass shooting. Japan has few mass shooting but the reason isn’t a gun ban. What Japan does is lock up the crazies.

Which is what we used to do. In 1960, there were more than three times as many in the United States who were incarcerated in mental institutions than in prisons.


It’s over six-to-one in prisons.

Supremes Throw Shade At Philly DA In Gun Case

Supremes Throw Shade At Philly DA In Gun Case

4 thoughts on “Supremes Throw Shade At Philly DA In Gun Case”

  1. Here’s a novel thought – – ARREST, PROSECUTE AND JAIL CRIMINALS IN THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA! Reinstate sensible bail requirements and stop the Krasner catch-and-release policies that keep criminals on the streets and active. Oh, and don’t take firearms away from law abiding citizens who are fleeing the city or avoiding even visiting because there is no one stopping the actual criminals (have you been to Center City recently?). No one bothers to break down who is shooting whom and with what guns when they make these overreaching arguments. How many shootings are at the hands of law abiding citizens with legally possessed and carried firearms (we’ll call these “legal guns”)? Of the shootings with legal guns, how many were justified? I’m willing to bet that unjustified shootings with legal guns are very rare and a tiny subset of all shootings. If current laws don’t stop people from possessing guns illegally, how can anyone believe that more laws will stop people from the illegal possession guns? Criminals are in the business of breaking the law. The only thing that will happen by allowing cities to have their own subset of gun laws is to create confusion and turn otherwise law-abiding gun owners into criminals because they aren’t aware that the law changes as they cross into one PA town from another. That’s just as stupid as the $1,000 theft minimum that is causing shops in Philadelphia to shutter.

    1. Anyone with a modicum of common sense could readily uphold this logic, but remember we are talking about Philadelphia and Democrat Justices, so I’ll just sit here and wait for the final judgment before I allow myself to cheer out loud.

  2. Japan doesn’t have a socialist problem either. Read about Otoya Yamaguchi for more details. Better yet watch the video footage from October 1960. Fair warning – not for the squeamish.

Leave a Reply

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.