A Reply by Daylin Leach State Rep who voted for gunbills on 11/20

[fultonCoShooter]

You asked why I voted for HB 18 and 22 at yesterday’s Judiciary Committee meeting. I’ll tell you why.

I voted for these reasonable gun-safety bills because they target criminals and do nothing to impede law-abiding citizens.

The one-gun-per-month bill allows a married couple to buy 24 guns per year. There is no “law-abiding citizen” with a legitimate purpose (other than licensed dealers, who are exempt from the law) buying 25 or more guns per year. The only people buying that many guns are straw-purchasers who are then selling the guns to felons, juveniles, mentally ill people and drug-addicts. For a few pieces of silver they are giving guns to violent people they know will hurt people with them.

The other bill says that if you loose a gun or it is stolen, you have to report it. Currently, we have to report a stolen car. Law abiding citizens have no problem reporting a stolen gun. The only ones who would have a problem are criminals who bought a gun (or many guns) to sell to felons, and when that gun is found at a crime scene, and the police ask them why their gun was at a crime scene, they claim “it was stolen”.

There is nothing in either bill that prevents any law-abiding citizen from having a gun, or multiple guns to protect their families or to hunt.

Some claim that there is a constitutional issue. They are wrong and have no idea how constitutional law works. The Second Amendment does not prohibit all restrictions on guns any more than the First Amendment prohibits all restrictions on speech. You have a right to free speech, but you can’t yell “FIRE” in a crowded theater because there is a public safety issue.

With any “right” the court adopts a balancing test. They measure the state’s interest vs. the impingement on the right. In order for a law impinging a constitutional right to be upheld, there first must be a “compelling” state interest. The courts have repeatedly said that stopping violent crime is in fact a compelling state interest. Then, the impingement on the right must be minimal. Requiring a phone call if a gun is stolen, or telling a couple they can’t have their 25th gun of the year, is clearly a minimal, almost non-existent impingement on the right to bear arms. Thus, these laws are clearly constitutional.

The fact that the NRA opposes any reasonable attempt to protect the public safety from criminal straw-purchasers shows that they have gone off to the extremist fringe. All polls show that even the majority of gun owners support these reasonable bills.

Thanks for asking.

how do people like this get elected?

last i checked our money wasnt backed by silver





Daylin Leach (Democrat)
Montgomery County (Part)

Occupation:
Attorney

Education:
Temple University, B.A. Political Science, 1983
University of Houston, J.D., 1986

Member of the House 2003 to date

Hon. Daylin Leach
601 S. Henderson Road
Suite 201
King of Prussia, PA 19406
(610) 768-4200
Fax: (610) 768-4204

Hon. Daylin Leach
109A East Wing
PO Box 202149
Harrisburg, PA 17120-2149
(717) 783-9114
Fax: (717) 787-0861

[MarcS]

We have no idea how constitutional law works? I know enough to know that being a state legislative issue that this has to do with the PA constitution, and not the second amendment.

[NineseveN]

Some claim that there is a constitutional issue. They are wrong and have no idea how constitutional law works. The Second Amendment does not prohibit all restrictions on guns any more than the First Amendment prohibits all restrictions on speech. You have a right to free speech, but you can’t yell “FIRE” in a crowded theater because there is a public safety issue.

Some people tend to follow with the "yelling FIRE in a crowded theater" argument to demonstrate that certain restrictions are necessary and apply to our inalienable rights. And based on that idea, they will say, that there is no absolute freedom of speech because you can’t yell ‘fire’ in a crowded theater, so the whole firearms rights issue is moot. They’ll say that you may have firearms, but there are restrictions, just like there are restrictions on the speech you are allowed to engage in. But the example of yelling ‘fire’ in a crowded theater is a flawed argument as misuse or abuse of freedoms is not exercising them. The freedom is for one to be able to engage in free speech, but misusing that for unlawful purposes is not protected under the First Amendment. The same parallels can be drawn with firearms.

According to the Second Amendment and Section 21 of our own Pennsylvania Constitution, we have an inalienable right to keep and bear arms. That does not mean that we can use them for unlawful purposes such as robbing a bank (against the law with or without a firearm), firing into a public crowd for no reason or shooting others without sufficient grounds for self-defense (also already against the law). This “fire in a crowded theater” example simply does not work because apples are being compared to oranges. You are free to say ‘fire’ all you like. You can even exclaim it in a crowded theater, so long as there truly is a fire and your intent is to inform the moviegoers for their own safety (a legal purpose), not to cause a riot or a panic when no such condition exists, thus breaking the law. You are not free to use that word, or any other to commit a crime or endanger others. The restriction is in the misuse of the freedom, not in the freedom itself.

You are free to possess the word "fire" in your vocabulary anywhere you go, you can learn it in different languages and likely even publicly express the word (again, so long as it's not intended to cause criminal mischief), you just cannot “use” the word to endanger or harm others. It should indeed parallel to the right to keep and bear arms; one should be able to own any firearm they like and as many as they want (similar to amassing a vocabulary). Once should be able to take their property (firearms, books, words whatever) with them anywhere they like except as on private property if the owner of said property refuses to allow them. One should be able to actually use their property (their firearms, words or books) for whatever lawful purpose they find desirable, so long as no one else's actual rights are being infringed in the process. The line is drawn when one abuses or misuses their property for criminal action.

You cannot cite your Second Amendment rights after you murder someone, there is no right to indiscriminately injure or kill people, because your rights end where everyone else's begin. Yelling fire in a crowded theater when no such fire exists has as much to do with exercising free speech as waving a gun in someone's face during an argument has to do with exercising the right to keep and bear arms.

If one is going to use the fire in a crowded theater argument, it would be wise of them to at least have a rudimentary understanding of what exactly that argument is. The hinge factor is not the potential public safety interest, it's misusing a freedom to cause criminal harm. No gun owner is fighting for the right to indiscriminately yell fire in crowded buildings or to randomly shoot people without cause; we're fighting for the rights granted to us by our creator to own whatever property we like and use it in the legal manner that we see fit.

[TaePo]

If you look up the word impinge, it immediately is equated to infringe.

So by replacing impinge with infringe in his statement, the 2A directly strikes down this method: "...shall not be infringed."

Sorry, but no sale here.

[billamj]

So I'm guessing that those of you who are "represented" by this simple putz will put him in the unemployment line the next time that he is up for election then?

The one-gun-per-month bill allows a married couple to buy 24 guns per year. There is no “law-abiding citizen” with a legitimate purpose (other than licensed dealers, who are exempt from the law) buying 25 or more guns per year. The only people buying that many guns are straw-purchasers who are then selling the guns to felons, juveniles, mentally ill people and drug-addicts. For a few pieces of silver they are giving guns to violent people they know will hurt people with them.

How about because I am a law abiding citizen and I just happen to have the money to afford 25, 26, 100 firearms in a one month period. Don't like that one there Mr. Representative, tough!

The other bill says that if you loose a gun or it is stolen, you have to report it. Currently, we have to report a stolen car. Law abiding citizens have no problem reporting a stolen gun. The only ones who would have a problem are criminals who bought a gun (or many guns) to sell to felons, and when that gun is found at a crime scene, and the police ask them why their gun was at a crime scene, they claim “it was stolen”.

Do you know where everything you own is 100% of the time, whether you are there or not? Didn't think so. Perhaps, sir, you should actually read both the Pennsylvania Constitution and the US Constitution, then maybe you'll know something more than your simple rhetoric.

[fultonCoShooter]

noticed he used no Mr @#$@% or even took the time to put his name at the bottom

[NoHackrLtd]

The one-gun-per-month bill allows a married couple to buy 24 guns per year.

What a simplistic view from a simplistic representative. And this goof went to law school?

Sure - 24 guns per year if it's split right down the middle of the marriage, timed exactly every 31st day.

Get real.

Nothing like making a straw purchaser out of a me or my spouse because I'm "over their limit" for the month, and have the spouse purchase the gun for me just because I've happened across a great deal on a gun that I've been looking for - and the seller refuses to hold it for another three weeks until my state mandated "period" is over.

Nice trap being set, isn't it?

Care to rethink that line of reasoning, Mr. Rep? This is the best that law school can come up with?

[Philadelphia]

He says "[s]ome claim that there is a constitutional issue. They are wrong and have no idea how constitutional law works."

I don't want to get into the whole liberal versus conservative thing here but this sort of talk is typical liberal BS. In other words, he's saying he knows better and you commoners out there just don't understand. That's not a representative. That's a dictator.

It's true, you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theatre. Can you yell "hello" more than once a month? Do you have to report if your kitchen knife is stolen? Your view and my view of constitutional questions is no less valid than his view. The view that counts is the judge sitting in a court that has jurisdiction over the question. Who does this clown think he is?

More importantly, putting that issue aside -- his job is to represent the people, not school them in his elementary view of constitutional law. Are more stupid, ineffective laws what his contituents want?

He might be a great guy otherwise (I have no idea) but his response is aggravating.

[fultonCoShooter]

he also spelled lose loose right? i mean this guy is a Stat Rep he must have meant it. Even i have spell check and he is a lawyer so surly he should know because lawyers win and lose cases.......hmmm

The other bill says that if you loose a gun or it is stolen

im so confused now because if i lose my dog i cant find him! but if i turn my dog loose from the fenced in area he is still there But might be stolen?

[Agent Smith]

I am so sick of this yelling fire in a crowded theatre thing. That has nothing to do with the Second Amendment which clear states: "...shall not be infringed". I don't know how these morons can't understand that.