Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

And So It Begins: Pittsburgh Council Member Moves to Enact Unconstitutional Gun Control Law

I love the city of Pittsburgh.  But sometimes I wish it got it’s metaphorical head out of its own ass and took a lead from literally every surrounding part of Western Pennylvania.  You know, the flag respecting, gun rights acknowledging, God fearing American part.

But then you get some weasel elected to the City Council who doesn’t seem to be able to tell his ass from a hole in the ground talking about “feelings” instead of facts and I just shake my head thinking “here we go again.”

This time I speak of Councilman Dan Gilman who wants to ban firearms in city parks.

As you may have gathered from the Bullets First instagram page, I LOVE walking in the woods.  And Pittsburgh is literally surrounded by them with a great number of parks to walk and hike through.  But with love the great outdoors is an understanding that being out there, away from it all, is a perfect time for some malevolent criminal to do me harm.  Sure, I can hold my own against most people, but a group?  Armed with lead pipes, knives or guns of their own (not like they are going to listen to some stupid ban when they are all ready criminals)?  Gilman would make a victim of me.  Not to mention any woman who likes to find the serenity of the outdoors as I do.  Or a mother with her children playing.

Dan Gilman wants to make it easier for bigger, stronger or more numerous men to be able to rape women in Pittsburgh City Parks.  THAT should be the headline.

Dan Gilman would strip women of their right to defend themselves against rapists and murderers.  Dan Gilman would endanger children because of his own weak bladder reaction to the idea of a strong independent woman defending herself with a gun.

Take a look at Dan Gilman…he even looks like the type who prefers women to be unarmed when he comes upon them alone in the woods:

And what does Gilman have to say for himself to defend his preposterous pro rape stance?

“I’m not looking to infringe on rights or take away where hunting may be permitted. I just don’t think 7-year-olds playing little league baseball need to see assault rifles where they play.”

So right away he just goes straight to the gun controllers boogeyman of “assault rifles.”  He doesn’t even say they are being used, he thinks it is emotionally devastating for them to even be SEEN.  This is where Gilman’s whole argument goes straight into the garbage because he is not looking to ban “assault rifles” from parks, he wants to ban ALL guns, so any concealed carry personal protection handgun that a woman would want to use to protect herself or her 7 year old baseball playing little leaguer, Gilman would also prohibit.

Gilman regurgitates more talking points trying to associate the mere presence of guns with being unsafe:

“Parks are the basic area where our children play. We don’t want them breathing cigarette smoke. We don’t want them looking at weapons. We don’t want them to play in any way in a dangerous environment.” 

Is this guy serious?  Equating having smoke blown into a kids face is the same thing has having them seeing a firearm?  Gilman, who apparently failed Logic at Carnegie Mellon University, equates seeing firearms as making the environment dangerous.

But this is what gun control radicals like Gilman are trying to do.  They want to equate firearms, the legal and normal act of carrying firearms, and the whole notion that someone would seek to protect themselves as something BAD.  Gilman and his ilk are trying to plant seeds in children’s minds that guns are bad so that they grow up being bed wetting, pro-rape dillweeds like Dan Gilman.

You think it’s unfair that I equate gun controllers with being pro-rape?  Would it suprise you that the Brady Campaign’s official stance is that it is better to be raped than to shoot a rapist?

Yep.  As you can imagine when the Brady Campaign didn’t get the overwhelming support that they thought their true feelings would have elicited they took this post down.  I saved it for posterity so that people will always know what gun controllers like Dan Gilman think.

And lets not forget sitting Congressman Sean Patrick Maloney who cared more about the feelings of rapists than he did for their victims:

(SHOCKING) Congressman Sean P Maloney(D-NY18) More Concerned With The Feelings of Foreign Rapists than Protecting the Women of his District from them

So the victimization of women is part and parcel of what the gun control movement is all about.

Gun Control protects criminals and that is what Dan Gilman is trying to accomplish with his proposal.

Oh, and I guess I should add his completely illegal, unenforceable and unconstitutional proposal.

You see, in the free Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the commonwealth has enacted preemption laws just for situations like this where little despots like Gilman think they will foist their own phobias and feelings upon the people of Pittsburgh, thereby stripping them of their rights.

Preemption from the Pennsylvania statute reads as follows:

(a)  General rule.–No county, municipality or township may in any manner regulate the lawful ownership, possession, transfer or transportation of firearms, ammunition or ammunition components when carried or transported for purposes not prohibited by the laws of this Commonwealth.

As it stands, the Commonwealth has not prohibited the carrying of firearms in city parks, therefore Gilman proposal, if ratified, would be illegal before the ink ever dried.

Unfortunately that might not stop Gilman and his cronies on Pittsburgh’s city council from passing it anyways.  Then someone like me will have to walk around with a gun waiting to be arrested and then go through all the hassle in order to sue the city, win and then get reimbursed for my troubles all at the expense of the taxpayers.

A commonwealth law was enacted a few years back that held the politicians who passed knowingly illegal laws like this PERSONALLY liable and they would have to pay out of pocket.  Regrettably, on a technicality, it was struck down by the courts, not on merit mind you but rather that it was added improperly to another piece of legislation.

With gun hating Gov. Wolfe now in office a veto, if the bill was resent, would surely be applied.

So I guess if Gilman doesn’t care about the law and convinces his cohorts to thumb their noses at the rules while endangering citizens and encouraging/protecting rapists, we’ll have to do this the hard way.  Unfortunately it will be the people of Pittsburgh who will pay.

Hopefully it is something the good people of Pittsburgh will remember come next election.

 

 

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.

Send this to friend