Thread: Pennsylvania town mulls recommending guns for all

Pennsylvania town mulls recommending guns for all
By Jon Hurdle
1 hour, 18 minutes ago



PHILADELPHIA (Reuters) - A tiny town in western Pennsylvania could ask all of its residents to own guns, if a proposal under consideration on Wednesday wins approval from local officials.

Under the proposed law, residents of Cherry Tree, Pennsylvania, would be asked to own guns and know how to use them. Cherry Tree, some 70 miles northeast of Pittsburgh, has about 400 residents.

The town council was scheduled to vote on the proposed "Civil Protection Ordinance" on Wednesday evening.

Introduced last month by resident Henry Statkowski, the measure recommends that "all heads of households maintain a firearm along with ammunition."

In written comments, Statkowski said homeowners have a right and a responsibility to defend against intruders rather than calling police and waiting for help to arrive.

The measure would send a message to "burglars, ne'er-do-wells and other criminal elements," Statkowski wrote.

The male head of the household has the responsibility to defend the family from intruders, he also wrote.

"I don't believe your wife would appreciate it very much if you said, 'Honey, I'll wait until the police arrive and have them defend your life,"' he wrote.

Statkowski could not be reached for comment.

Chad Ramsey, a spokesman for the national gun-control group the Brady Campaign, dismissed the proposal as "ridiculously silly."

The measure was unlikely to pass because state law prevents municipalities from making their own gun laws, Ramsey said. He said about 40 percent of Pennsylvania households own guns.

Aaron Fry, owner of the Cherry Tree Cafe, said he did not understand why the measure was necessary because guns are common. "Every house has a couple of guns," he said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061206/us_nm/usa_guns_dc

In written comments, Statkowski said homeowners have a right and a responsibility to defend against intruders rather than calling police and waiting for help to arrive.

I have a feeling that the author of this peice took liberties in twisting the sentiments of Mr. Statkowski to fit his/her own agenda. As a registered, fully trained civilian gun owner, I NEVER want to be in the position of having to kill someone to defend my life and liberty. But I will, if I have to, if I think that waiting for the police to arrive might jeopardize my own chance of survival.

ROTFLMAO

"I don't believe your wife would appreciate it very much if you said, 'Honey, I'll wait until the police arrive and have them defend your life,"' he wrote.

Finally, a reasonable town.

.

Originally Posted by 2ndamendsis

ROTFLMAO

"I don't believe your wife would appreciate it very much if you said, 'Honey, I'll wait until the police arrive and have them defend your life,"' he wrote.

Finally, a reasonable town.

.

Yea thats why I posted it, I like that town board and me a retired whatca ma call it

Introduced last month by resident Henry Statkowski, the measure recommends that "all heads of households maintain a firearm along with ammunition."

Constitutionally it could be argued that no ordinance is necessary. As usual our school system and government fail to inform by design and the "trusting" People fail to make themselves aware of their Constitutional rights and RESPONSIBLITIES to our Constitution.

This is technically a call to citizens to honor the established practice of the states prior to the Constitutional Convention which was to maintain a "well regulated militia of the states".

I am not referring to the National Guard, which the modern day government passes off as a fullfillment of the requirement for states to maintain a "well regulated militia of the states". In fact today the National Guard is in the service of the Federal government deployed over seas and has been federalized which is totally contrary to the definition as understood by those who framed the Constitution. Today the National Guard services the roll of the necessity which prompted the Constitutional Convention... the inablity of the several states to raise a federal military.

The framers of the Constitution were divided into two camps. Federalist who saw the need to create the ability of the Federal government to raise a military and the Anti Federalist who saw the need to maintain the "well regulated militia of the states" to insure the free states and rights of the people would never be encroached upon by the Federal government.

As a result of compromise between Federalist and Anti Federalist the "well regulated militia of the states" was neither mentioned nor specifically defined in the first Constitution. The reason for the Second Ammendment, in the Bill of Rights was to insure the right of the states and the people to continue the long established practice of maintaining a militia independent of the Federal government.

Unfortunately the wording of the Second Ammendment is loose and does not use the term "well regulated militia of the states". It merely states the right of the people to bear arms shall not be encroached. It does not say why the people require the right. As a result the Second Ammendment has evolved into a generalized understanding that it insures the rights of citizens to bear arms for the purpose of self defense as opposed to the purpose to defend the free states and rights of the people gauranteed by the Constitution. (see one court's statement in last paragraph url reference)

I think you will find the following brief history interesting and useful to set the scene for the quotation by James Madison regarding the "militia" as it was defined at the time of the forming of this nation.

In 1786, a decade after the Declaration of Independence was signed, the United States existed as a loose national government under the Articles of Confederation. This confederation was perceived to have several weaknesses, among which was the inability to mount a Federal military response to an armed uprising in western Massachusetts known as Shays' Rebellion.

In 1787, to address these weaknesses, the Philadelphia Convention was convened with the charter of amending the Articles. When the convention concluded with a proposed Constitution, those who debated the ratification of the Constitution divided into two camps; the Federalists (who supported ratification of the Constitution) and the Anti-Federalists (who opposed it).

Among their objections to the Constitution, anti-Federalists feared creation of a standing army that could eventually endanger democracy and civil liberties as had happened recently in the American Colonies and Europe. Although the anti-Federalists were ultimately unsuccessful at blocking ratification of the Constitution, through the Massachusetts Compromise they laid the groundwork to insure that a Bill of Rights would be drafted, which would provide constitutional guarantees against encroachment by the government of certain rights.

The Federalists on the other hand held that a Bill of Rights was unnecessary, particularly as the Federal Government could never raise a standard army powerful enough to overcome the militia.

Leading Federalist James Madison wrote

Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger.

The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men.

To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections
and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. [7]

I have to assume James Madison did not invision governors the likes of which we see today.

------
Another interesting reference (short read) with regard to the Second Ammendment and its purpose: This decision involved a case where the defendent arguing against gun registration interpreted the Second Ammendment as it has been allowed to be interpreted by the masses today. (personal defense) The judge referring to the Second Ammendment states,

"What ever the ammendment may mean, it is a bar only to Federal Action not extending to state or private restraints." http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/pdf2002/020.pdf

Some information is missing in the above, Xanadu.

The 2nd is not only relating to a standing state militia but also the right of the individual to protect his property & life and lives of his family.

.

I guess I did not make my meaning clear. Today it is understood as the right to protect one's self and family as well as property. This is the agrument before the court in the reference at the end of the commentary.

What is important is people today have NO clue what the militia of several states is. The militia of the several states is a declared Constitutional responsiblity that people of this nation did not know existed by design of those who wish to replace the United States Republic with a communist hybrid.

My feeling when reading the statement by Madison is that the militia of several states was the last ditch effort of the founders of this nation to preserve and protect what the founders intended. NOW IS THE TIME!

Right now is the moment for the people to excercise their Constitutional responsibiblities! Given the caliber of some of the governors in place today, I do not see many if any states rising up to protect their citizens.