Fierce Patriots

Conservative Political News

  • Subscribe

<![CDATA[Pennsylvania]]>

AOC Accuses Supreme Court of a 'Coup' After 2020 Election-Related Case Is Taken Up

by Leave a Comment

The hits just keep on coming for the Democrat Party as this year’s Supreme Court term comes to a close. Obviously, the decisions have taken center stage, with Roe v. Wade being overturned, the Second Amendment getting affirmed, and the EPA being prevented from turning itself into its own fourth branch of government.

But after the decisions finished dropping on Thursday morning, the next shoe to drop was what cases would be taken up for the next term. One case already has the left losing its ever-loving mind: Moore vs. Harper.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez took the news especially hard, declaring the Supreme Court was enacting a “coup” and seeking to end presidential elections. As I wrote about Elizabeth Warren’s doom-spelling reaction to the EPA decision, the strategy of proclaiming everything the end of the world is incredibly stupid because then nothing is the end of the world. AOC does even begin to understand that, and she’s having a banner week of rhetorical freakouts.

With all that said, you might be asking yourself why Democrats are so up in arms about the Supreme Court taking up this case. The answer is simple: They see it as a blow to their ability to direct elections in their favor.

Specifically, during the 2020 election, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decided to override the state’s constitution and its legislature in order to allow universal mail-in balloting. At the time, it was clearly an improper and abusive decision, but it helped Joe Biden greatly against Donald Trump, so Democrats loved it. If the Supreme Court ends up curtailing the power of the courts to override elected legislatures in making voting laws, it would end the left’s best tool in ensuring they can stack the deck, and we just can’t have that, can we?

AOC and her cohorts want the courts to have the power to dictate voting policies without the input of voters, full stop. If they lose that, they lose the ability to help dictate election outcomes as they likely did in Pennsylvania. The same goes for the drawing of congressional districts. In the past census cycle, court after court attempted to interfere in the district-drawing of legislatures, mostly in Republican states at the behest of leftwing activist groups. In the end, enough things went the GOP’s way to limit the damage, but it could have been much worse.

To summarize, while Democrats scream about “democracy,” all the Supreme Court has done is once again hand power back to the people. And frankly, after 50 years of the high court delivering blow after blow to conservatives, it’s pathetic to see the left behave the way they are. Jumping in a lake comes to mind.

Pittsburgh mayor calls for state to remove preemption

by Leave a Comment

Pittsburgh is now establishing a history of mayors who think they should have the power to curtail rights. Former Mayor Bill Peduto pushed through an assault weapon ban that violated the state’s preemption law, as an example.

Well, Peduto is gone. Now, Mayor Ed Gainey seems to be following a similar footprint.

Pittsburgh Mayor Ed Gainey is calling on state lawmakers to give Pittsburgh the power to pass and enforce its own gun laws and end a state law intended to preempt the city from doing so.

This comes as the city also appeals to Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court, seeking the power to enforce gun laws the city passed in 2019 after the mass shooting at the Tree of Life Synagogue.

“Give us the right to preempt state law. Give us the right to ban military-style assault weapons in our streets. Give us the right,” Gainey said during a news conference in the portico of the City-County Building on Monday. “We are begging our legislators in Harrisburg. Give us the right to fight for the lives of our children.”

The mayor was joined by community leaders and elected officials calling for what they describe as commonsense gun legislation.

…

The city of Pittsburgh saw more gun violence this weekend. Several people were hurt, one man was killed and an officer was hit by a bullet.

The mayor spoke about the Pittsburgh police officer who escaped serious injury when a shot fired at him hit his protective vest.

“He’s doing well. We’re praying for him. We’re thankful that nothing serious happened. And I want that officer and his family to know how much he means to the city of Pittsburgh,” Gainey, said. “But again, that’s why we need the state to move.”

Gainey talked primarily about so-called gun crime, stating he lost a sister and niece to such a thing.

I’m sympathetic. Losing someone you care about to such a thing is rough and I get wanting to do something to make sure it never happens again.

However, let’s be real for a moment. There’s a greater chance of Kate Beckinsale calling me up to ask me out and my wife being truly OK with me agreeing than there is of any gun control measure passed by the city of Pittsburgh actually stopping any shootings.

First, cities generally don’t pass felonies. The most they can do is hit someone with a misdemeanor.

Now, if the felony charges that come from shooting at people–even if you miss, unless it’s self-defense, it’s still a felony–aren’t enough to deter criminals, then just what is a misdemeanor going to do?

Let’s remember that these are criminals we’re talking about here. If they were inclined to follow the law in the first place, there wouldn’t be an issue.

But if Pittsburgh restricts guns, it won’t be the criminals that will be impacted. It’ll be the law-abiding citizens of Pittsburgh who will find themselves.

They’ll follow the law because they’re law-abiding, but they’ll be at a disadvantage when compared to the criminals that prey upon them.

So here’s hoping state lawmakers tell Gainey and future Pittsburgh officials to pound sand.

Dr. Oz Kicks Trump to the Curb After Winning Primary Fight

by Leave a Comment

If you jumped on social media this morning, you were likely privy to outrage from some of the more outspoken Trump-supporting accounts. So who were they mad at and what did that person supposedly do?

The reactions stemmed from Dr. Mehmet Oz, who won the GOP primary for Senate in Pennsylvania recently, appearing to kick Donald Trump to the curb after his victory, at least in regards to his campaign strategy.

Apparently, Oz has stopped mentioning Trump on Twitter and cleared him from his profile banner. He has also taken Trump off his website’s home page and stopped running ads that feature him and Trump together.

According to a Tuesday report from Axios, Trump was a “near-ubiquitous fixture” in the Oz campaign’s advertisements, with a series of issue-centered videos about gun rights, abortion, and energy beginning with the phrase “endorsed by President Trump.” On social media, Oz’s cover photo was a banner image of himself alongside Trump, his Twitter account “mentioned Trump more than 70 times,” and his team ran Trump-centered ads on Google and Facebook.

However, according to Axios, Oz has not mentioned Trump on Twitter since May 17 — the day of the Republican primary. The cover photo now says, “Thank you, Pennsylvania” on a solo photo of the candidate, and the website no longer features a pop-up fundraiser window featuring Trump. Oz has also reportedly stopped running the Trump ads on Google and Facebook.

But unlike those who are taking this as some kind of betrayal, I just don’t think it’s a big deal. Oz’s goal right now is to win his election, right? If tacking to the center in an extremely purple state helps him do that, then who am I to argue? Regardless of how one feels about Trump, he’s a polarizing figure. There’s little to be gained by Oz continuing to go back to that well during the general election. He has to become his own man, and no one should fault him for that.

I say that as someone who didn’t support Oz in his primary because I think he’s a Democrat who changed almost every position he holds over just a couple of years’ time. But instead of trying to dunk and saying “See? I told you so,” I actually think Oz’s shift here is normal and reasonable. Again, the goal is to win, not make Trump a centerpiece.

John Fetterman, Oz’s Democrat opposition, is a far-left radical, but he plays the “moderate everyman” role pretty well. The decision to make a broader appeal is a smart one by Oz. Big-time Trump supporters are already with him. Now, he’s got to make inroads in the Philly suburbs, and the former president doesn’t help in those areas.

I suspect Trump himself is fine with this change in strategy as well. There’s no doubt he wants his endorsees to go on and win their general elections. If they don’t, it comes back as an indictment of his judgment. I’d also bet that Trump will hold at least one more rally for Oz before this is all over.

In short, no, Oz has not “turned on America First.” He’s just trying to win his election. Perhaps he will ultimately betray GOP voters, but that’s not something that we’ll know until he actually enters the Senate. Then we can get an idea of how he will choose to govern.

PA Republicans gut gun control bill and replace it with Constitutional Carry language

by Leave a Comment

The odds of a Democratic-sponsored gun control legislation getting enacted by the Republican-controlled legislature in Pennsylvania were never good to begin with, but lawmakers took the extra step on Tuesday of stripping a bill of language that would have raised the age to purchase a modern sporting rifle from 18 to 21 and replacing it with Constitutional Carry language instead.

The GOP-led House Judiciary Committee made the swap over the objections of Democratic sponsor Rep. Peter Schweyer, who said he still wants to see the bill brought forward for a vote on the House floor.

“I don’t want to give them an opportunity to hide behind a committee vote. I want them to have to justify why they did this in public,” he said.

Judiciary Committee Chairperson Rob Kauffman, R-Franklin, declined to speak with reporters after the vote.

Democratic members of the committee vocally opposed the amendment, calling it an abdication of the Legislature’s responsibility.

“Instead of going in one direction to provide appropriate regulation of the collective right to buy arms, we are going to buy into the myth of the individual inviolate right to bear arms,” said Rep. Joseph Hohenstein, D-Philadelphia.

“If we don’t regulate this right to bear arms and we say instead there is an unfettered individual right we will effectively have gone 150 years back into the wild west,” Hohenstein said.

Sorry Joe, but you lost me at “collective right”. What Hohenstein wants, of course, is to tell young adults that not only can they not purchase the most common firearm for self-defense (a handgun), they’re no longer allowed to purchase the most commonly-sold rifle in the country as well.

If we want to have a national conversation about raising the age of adulthood to 21, fine (though I think that would only exacerbate the problem of extended adolescence). But when Democrats are calling for both lowering the voting age to 16 and raising the age to exercise your Second Amendment rights to 21, I honestly find it hard to take either argument seriously, especially when the anti-gun side makes it clear they don’t want to stop with barring those under the age of 21 from purchasing a semi-automatic rifle.

“We’re talking about guns that kill lots of people all at once and we don’t need those in our society writ large and we certainly don’t need them in the hands of teenagers who lack impulse control,” he said. “We are failing to do our jobs and we are actually doing harm if we don’t pass this.”

A serious question for Hohenstein and other gun control advocates; if young adults are so lacking in impulse control, why isn’t he demanding a complete ban on under-21s possessing any firearm? How about everyone younger than 25? And why stop with firearms? Why haven’t we (or rather, they) called for raising the age to operate a smart phone or to post on social media to 21 as well? Imagine the damage that could be done to sex traffickers and their networks if we kept kids and young adults off of platforms like Facebook.

Of course there would be First Amendment concerns, but why should those bother Hohenstein any more than Second Amendment considerations factor into his calls for more gun control? If it protects just one child, isn’t it worth curtailing the rights of every young adult in the state of Pennsylvania?

As for the Republicans on the Judiciary Committee who substituted gun control language with the text of a stalled Constitutional Carry bill instead, while I appreciate the sentiment, the bill itself isn’t about to become law. Constitutional Carry has already been approved by the state legislature, and it’s been vetoed by Gov. Tom Wolf. They can pass the bill again (and very well might if Schweyer succeeds in bringing the bill to the floor), but as long as the governor has a “D” after his name, the Keystone State is going to keep a license to carry requirement in place.

Now that both parties have reminded us of their respective positions on the right to keep and bear arms, maybe the two sides can start to talk about ways to address violent crime that don’t involve criminalizing a constitutional right. I’ve been a huge proponent of programs like Project Ceasefire, and I’m pleased that Republicans and Democrats in my state of Virginia were finally able to agree on millions of dollars in the latest budget to fund grants for a proven program that can change lives for the better and can reduce homicide rates by more than 50% when successfully implemented. There’s no reason why Pennsylvania lawmakers couldn’t find the same accord, except for Democrats insisting that the only way to improve public safety is by restricting the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens.

Gun raffle to benefit high school band sells out despite objections from gun control advocates

by Leave a Comment

When the Bands of America marching band competition kicks off in Orlando, Florida this October, students from the West Harrison High School band in Mississippi will be taking part, and thanks to the generosity (and support for the Second Amendment) from many locals, the kids won’t have to pay for all of their expenses themselves.

A gun raffle held by the band’s booster club has officially sold out of the $100 raffle tickets, and that has some gun control fans in the area steaming, saying it’s “highly inappropriate” for the booster club to use guns as a means to raise money for the students.

“It’s highly inappropriate,” said Tori Bishop, a former Harrison County School District parent and an administrator for a Facebook group called Harrison County Parents for a Safer Return to School. The group has more than 1,500 members.

“In light of the recent school shooting, and the mass shootings we’ve been having going on in this country … it is in extremely poor taste. I am disappointed in the district,” Bishop said.

“I understand that rifles are commonly raffled in this area but there are semi automatics and handguns on this list as well,” said former state Rep. Sonya Williams Barnes, who now works for the Southern Poverty Law Center. “After the tragedy in Uvalde, it seems to me that the organizers should have used better judgment by shutting the raffle down. Even if for no other reason but for respect to those 19 babies and 2 teachers whose lives were lost.”

It seems to me that most folks understand that this raffle has nothing to do with the monstrous actions of the cowardly killer in Uvalde. I mean, the raffle did sell out, after all. It’s not like the organizers were struggling to find people willing to spend $100 for the chance to win a gun, which honestly, in this economic environment, is kind of surprising.

The school district itself also isn’t a part of the raffle, which is being organized by an outside booster group with no official ties to the district. And winners will have to go through a background check before they can pick up their new firearm from the local gun shop that’s sponsoring the raffle as well, though that’s of little importance to the gun control fans who want to see the raffle shut down.

And they may well get their wish. A link to the Facebook page where the guns were being raffled off was disabled when I checked on Friday, and there have been several other gun raffles around the country that have been suspended or pulled in recent weeks after complaints, including a raffle benefitting the Columbia, Missouri Police Officer’s Association, a volunteer fire department in Pennsylvania, and a high school wrestling team in North Carolina.

In fact, the cancellations have become so widespread that even some national media outlets have noticed. NPR ran a story a couple of weeks ago talking about a number of other raffles that were suspended or called off, with some organizers reporting receiving an overwhelming amount of hate and “negative feedback”.

“Due to some bad publicity, and negative feedback from other citizens I am going to seize the current sportsman package raffle. Everyone will be refunded for their purchases,” a post on the Aliquippa Police K9 Facebook page announced last Thursday, two days after the shooting at the primary school in Uvalde that killed 19 children and two teachers. Later that day came a follow-up post noting “the hate mail that’s flowing in right now because of a overly sensitive society.”

As in Rocky Run, Aliquippa Police Chief John Lane concedes it was “bad timing” for the fundraiser. The proceeds were to go to the widow of Lane’s predecessor, who died in 2020.

He says that in the past, a sergeant with the K9 unit has raffled other things besides guns. “He’s done cigars; he’s done lawn furniture. But [the gun raffle] makes the most money.”

Lane says that despite the decision to call the raffle off, the community reaction to it in the days after the Uvalde shootings was running about 70-30 in favor of holding it anyway. “I understand why some people find it wrong,” he says. “But it goes both ways.”

Yes, but the loudest voices tend to win out at a time like this, which is why we’re seeing so many of these raffles are being called off right now. And with opponents of the raffles declaring that anyone who supports them must not care about the victims in Uvalde, or care more about guns than kids, a lot of the folks who don’t think the raffle should be cancelled may be cowed into silence simply because they don’t want that hate directed their way. It’s the heckler’s veto at work, and the ones who are most harmed are those who stood to benefit from the raffle’s success; high school marching bands, fire departments, and even the widow of a Pennsylvania police chief.