Source:

The number of shootings, gun murders and suicides using firearms is rising across the country.

Mass shootings are commonplace in the U.S. and although they get most of the attention, they don’t happen nearly as often as a shooting on the street or in a home. Philadelphia and other large cities are setting records for gun deaths but here in Central Pennsylvania, not a week goes by that we don’t hear of a shooting nearby.

No one has been able to identify any one reason why gun violence is increasing – other than the availability of guns.

The “one reason” for “gun violence” is the gun. Apparently, they’ve never heard of sin but ascribe voodoo-like powers to inanimate objects. The New Religion truly is an irrational scattershot of bazaar beliefs and dogmas disconnected from reality.

So when you deny sin and the reality of the state of man’s soul before God, naturally, you find a fake religionist who ascribes to the same worldview of blaming objects for the actions of men.

A new group — the Saving Lives: Ending Gun Violence Committee — is led by the religious community, in particular Pennsylvania’s Episcopal Diocese,  is calling for tougher gun laws.

On The Spark Tuesday, The Rev. Jennifer Mattson, Rector of St. Thomas Episcopal Church in Lancaster and Chair of the committee outlined the laws the group is advocating for,”Limiting purchases to one handgun a month to make it harder for illegal handgun trafficking to occur, an extreme risk protection order, which would be a temporary judicial removal of (guns)... Prohibition on the sales of assault weapons and large capacity ammunition style magazines, which, by the way, are the weapons most typically used for mass shootings, and then a prohibition on the sale and the possession of ghost guns. So these are the parts of guns that are kits that can be available that people can then put together their own gun that wouldn’t have identifying markers or information, which can make it more difficult actually, for law enforcement to solve crimes.”

The article goes on to explain that a piece of parchment grants rights to us, again, devoid of the knowledge and understanding of God’s existence, let alone a rational and healthy fear of the Almighty as Creator and Lawgiver. Read the rest of the drivel if you want to.

Prince Law:

Today, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued a 53 page majority opinion, a 2 page concurring decision by Justice Baer and a 16 page concurring opinion by Justice Dougherty which Justice Mundy joined, in the case of Commonwealth v. Hicks, which addressed whether the mere open or concealed carrying of a firearm constitutes reasonable suspicion of a crime.

[ … ]

“Before this Court, the Commonwealth again advanced its “radical position,” Hawkins, 692 A.2d at 1071, in the present iteration contending that police officers are not only entitled, but “duty bound” to seize and investigate the licensing status of every individual who carries a concealed firearm in Pennsylvania. Brief for Commonwealth at 11. We have little difficulty in again rejecting this proposition, because we conclude that the Robinson rule contravenes the Terry doctrine and, indeed, the fundamental guarantees of the Fourth Amendment.

Although the carrying of a concealed firearm is unlawful for a person statutorily prohibited from firearm ownership or for a person not licensed to do so, see 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 6105-06, there is no way to ascertain an individual’s licensing status, or status as a prohibited person, merely by his outward appearance. As a matter of law and common sense, a police officer observing an unknown individual can no more identify whether that individual has a license in his wallet than discern whether he is a criminal. Unless a police officer has prior knowledge that a specific individual is not permitted to carry a concealed firearm, and absent articulable facts supporting reasonable suspicion that a firearm is being used or intended to be used in a criminal manner, there simply is no justification for the conclusion that the mere possession of a firearm, where it lawfully may be carried, is alone suggestive of criminal activity.

If the consequence of our decision is that future courts afford meaningful Fourth Amendment protection to individuals engaged in other commonly licensed activities, that result is preferable to our allowance of governmental overreach that undermines the individual freedom that is essential to our way of life in this constitutional republic.

…

Crime and violence are ever-present threats in society, and it can be tempting to look to the government to provide protection from “dangerous” people with constant vigilance. However, the protections of the Fourth Amendment remain an essential bulwark against the overreaches and abuses of governmental authority over all individuals. Notwithstanding the dangers posed by the few, we must remain wary of the diminution of the core liberties that define our republic, even when the curtailment of individual liberty appears to serve an interest as paramount as public safety. “Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.” Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 479 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting).

Consistent with the General Assembly’s reservation of the exclusive prerogative to regulate firearms in this Commonwealth, codified at 18 Pa.C.S. § 6120, the additional requirement that an individual possess a license in order to carry a firearm openly within the City of Philadelphia is prescribed by statute, not by municipal ordinance. See 18 Pa.C.S. § 6108; see generally Ortiz v. Commonwealth, 681 A.2d 152 (Pa. 1996).”

So the court did three things: [1] decreed that the mere carrying of a firearm in a concealed manner isn’t a reasonable suspicion of a crime (I would have to know the specifics of the case to be able to ascertain why this is important since if the firearm is concealed well, it wouldn’t be seen by anyone), [2] decreed that the mere carrying of a firearm openly isn’t a reasonable suspicion of a crime (apparently Pennsylvania has a permitted open carry system, and cops don’t have the right to stop someone who is openly carrying to ask about a permit), and [3] decreed that little tyrants in locales like cities or townships don’t have to right to upend this judgment.

Every once in a while someone gets it right.  I would think that after the decision by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals viz. The Charlotte Mecklenburg Police Department, they would stop trying to argue that they have unlimited rights.

But also just as apparent is the fact that the police go from judge to judge, and court to court, until they find someone who agrees with them.

That’s the American way, yes?