Stoltz Of Coudersport

Street Machines Auto Care

Howards Inc., Coudersport, PA

www.howardsinc.net

Elaine's Casual Cuts

Elaine's Casual Cuts

Vintage Bi-Plane Rides

Vintage Bi-Plane Rides

Do You Know: You can buy this marquee ad on Solomon's words for the wise for your business or event for only $10. per day! It's just one of the low cost advertising options available. Your ad is viewed 20,000 to 50,000 times every day. Email us for information on other ad locations.

Auction & Yard Sale Page

Wednesday, January 23, 2013

Metcalfe Seeks to Make Federal Gun-Grabbing A Criminal Offense in Pennsylvania


Metcalfe Seeks to Make Federal Gun-Grabbing A Criminal Offense in Pennsylvania
1/23/2013
HARRISBURG — State Representative Daryl Metcalfe (R-Butler) today announced his legislation that would make any new federal gun control laws unenforceable within the Commonwealth.

“Passage of my legislation will send the message that there will never be additional gun control, anywhere in Pennsylvania,” said Metcalfe. “Whether by White House executive orders, congressional fiat, or judicial activism, we will never allow the left to benefit from the wicked acts of murderers in order advance their senseless gun-grabbing agenda which would only succeed in replacing one of our most sacred personal liberties with the chains of government tyranny.”

Similar to legislation most recently introduced in Wyoming and Texas, Metcalfe’s Right to Bear Arms Protection Act (House Bill 357) would:
  • Prohibit enforcement of any new federal registration, restriction or prohibition requirement for privately owned firearms, magazines and ammunition.
  • Require the state of Pennsylvania, including the Office of Attorney General, to intercede on behalf of Commonwealth citizens against any federal attempt to register, restrict or ban the purchase or ownership of firearms and firearms accessories which are currently legal products.
Final enactment of Metcalfe’s Right to Bear Arms Protection Act would mean that anyone — even federal agents — who try to enforce any type of gun control restriction within state borders would face arrest and being charged with a felony offense.

“The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned,” said Metcalfe. “Article 1, Section 21 of the Pennsylvania Constitution makes it crystal clear that no level of government, especially the federal government, has any authority whatsoever to impose senseless restrictions on law-abiding firearms owners, or worse, the confiscation of legally owned firearms. The purpose of my legislation is to force any gun-grabbing federal official to count the costs of unconstitutionally disarming or denying Pennsylvania citizens their God-given right to keep and bear arms.”

Metcalfe is also calling on all Pennsylvania citizens who support Constitutional liberty to attend Pennsylvania’s annual Second Amendment Action Day on Tuesday, April 23, beginning at 10:00 a.m. in the State Capitol Rotunda, and to sign the all-new Armed Pennsylvania: Say to No Gun Control petition by visiting RepMetcalfe.com.

Representative Daryl Metcalfe
12th District
Pennsylvania House of Representatives

27 comments :

Anonymous said...

Two words: Supremacy Clause

Anonymous said...

its about time someone has steped up to pertect the rights for poeple in pa, good jop will done. ifought for freedom for 6 year in u.s air force and dont my freedom taking away because people drug cant contol thenselfs i beleave everyone should carry a sidearm and alot of this bad shit woudnt happen amen.

Anonymous said...

No one's grabbing your guns you cowards.

Where are the jobs? How many times must we genuflect to the job creators that aren't creating jobs before we resort to pitchforks and rakes?

Remember this Harrisburg...you work for ALL of us.

Anonymous said...

I have a really difficult time wrapping my brain around why I as a gun owner need to own some of the types of guns out there, such as an assault rifle. I can't hunt with them and they're definitely not the best gun for self defense. In close quarters where self defense would actually be taking place, I want a short barreled shotgun as my first choice, followed by a pistol, not a weapon accurate to several hundred yards where my self defense is actually murder. Shooting assault rifles is fun, but really no more fun than taking my semi-auto .22 out and shooting it and definitely more expensive to do so.

It seems this gun control issue is mostly knee jerk and emotion. Seems that I still have all of my hunting and self defense guns that I had before the national assault rifle and high capacity magazine bans and since the bans have been lifted...no armed government officials came to "pry them from my cold dead fingers" like everyone said they would.

In the end, I think that most of the concern is from manufacturers and sellers of the potentially banned weapons who know they won't be able to make money on their merchandise and they are standing behind our second amendment to protect their income and not concerns that someone is going to take by shotguns, pump action and bolt action rifles or any of my pistols and revolvers or my bows or my knives.

I think we all need to start to do some thinking on our own about what is really going on without the emotions and stop believing the talking heads.

(For the record I am not an Obama supporter or a Democrat or a Muslim, or a tree hugger or anything else some of you will accuse me to be...I am your neighbor that is capable of critical thinking)

Anonymous said...

A fine example of another nut job from Harrisburg who obviously is a puppet of the NRA.

Anonymous said...

What will our Sheriff do?

http://www.prisonplanet.com/many-more-sheriffs-vow-not-to-enforce-federal-gun-control-laws.html


Many More Sheriffs Vow Not To Enforce Federal Gun Control Laws

Oregon law enforcers lead national fight against Obama gun grab
Following Oregon Sheriff Tim Mueller’s lead, three more Sheriffs in parts of Oregon announced Wednesday in letters to U.S. Vice President Joe Biden that they would refuse to enforce any federal gun laws that are unconstitutional.

Crook County Sheriff Jim Hensley told local reporters “I’m going to follow my oath that I took as Sheriff to support the constitution.”

“I believe strongly in the Second Amendment,” Hensley added, urging “If the federal government comes into Crook County and wants to take firearms and things away from (citizens), I’m going to tell them it’s not going that way.”

Hensley told KTVZ.COM that he read Sheriff Mueller’s letter and it spurred him to make a stand. “I said, you know what? It’s a clear statement. He hit the nail right on the head,” Hensley said.



Referring to the recent mass shootings that have been cited as justification to move to impose strict new laws, Hensley said “Banning firearms and magazines, that is not going to cure the problem.”

“They are addressing the wrong topics,” Hensley added. “Kids for years now play video games in which they have committed thousands of homicides. I believe those games are teaching kids games they shouldn’t be doing, instilling a mindset to kill as many people as in a video game.”

Hensley’s letter, like Mueller’s, states : “Any federal regulation enacted by Congress or by executive order of the President offending the constitutional rights of my citizens shall not be enforced by me or by my deputies, nor will I permit the enforcement of any unconstitutional regulations or orders by federal officers within the borders of Crook County, Oregon.”

“In summary, it is the position of this Sheriff that I refuse to participate, or stand idly by, while my citizens are turned into criminals due to the unconstitutional actions of misguided politicians,” the letter concludes.

In comments to the media, Hensley added “Some people go so far as to ask, ‘Well, are you going to fight our military when they come to take our guns?’ I say absolutely not – we’re not going to get into a gun battle with our fellow citizens. But I will do everything in my power to defend their right to the Second Amendment.”

In addition to Sheriff Hensley, another Oregon Sheriff, Larry Blanton of Deschutes County, told reporters that he will also stand with the Second Amendment.

“Right now, I support the Constitution and I support the Second Amendment,” Blanton said. “I support our citizens and other citizens rights to own and bear arms. That’s my stand. Always has been, always will be.”

Anonymous said...

YES!!!!! But they arent gettin' mine regardless...

Anonymous said...

Get ready people the next four years is going to be a huge obuma power grab! I hope the soup lines aren't to long in the cold weather!

Anonymous said...

Glad to see there is aomebody with some common sense. I stand with you Representative Metcalfe.
Dan Manning

Anonymous said...

Well said 6:25 poster - More gun owners need to bring some common sense to this discussion. I guess it's much easier to let someone else tell you what to think instead of using your noggin' to look at the facts and come up with your own opinion. The gun and outdoors businesses know this and have no problem using you to protect their profits. If you actually READ the language of the executive order, you might notice that most of it addresses background checks and mental health issues to prevent whack jobs from possessing assault weapons. Isn't that the point?

Anonymous said...

If the Supremacy Clause means nothing to nuts like Metcalfe, maybe we as private citizens can begin ignoring all the laws we don't care for. A good start would be to refuse to pay taxes of any type that support idiots in Harrisburgh. I don't care for the law requiring me to do so. And if I don't pay property taxes locally, maybe I'll decide to defend my home and property against all government agents from any level of government who may try to come a nd seize it. I too have many firearms.
We are headed down the road of anarchy, fueled by jerks like Metcalfe, who pander to any group that lines his campaign "war" chest.
Keep stoking the fires, nutballs.

Anonymous said...

Blah blah blah "im a hunter and I dont have an assault rifle". Dumb comment of the year. I dont care what your view is on it. The fact of the matter is that this is what our country was founded on. FREEDOM. So I guess I will have to post it again. The 6th ammendment to the constitution of the United States:

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution"

See where it says "this Constitution"??? Yeah, that dont mean to change it whenever you dont agree with it. This is just how it is. And if you disagree with it, move on to a country without the beliefs that you dont like.

Chris Carpenter

Anonymous said...

First of all ANYONE that kills another has to be on drugs. NO normal person kills another person. We need to look at all the drugs doctors give to kids and people. Side effects !!! Crazy ness. Also we need to look at all the video games that are violent and the people think after you shoot someone they just get back up and run like the videos. Is't videos what THEY claim was the cause of the mass shooting????? GUNS do not kill people DO. We need to control PEOPLE DRS and DRUGS Prescription drugs that they give to our children so they can be sombies and not bother their parents. Thank You Mr Metcalfe for relizing that guns don't kill people do. I will vote for you.

Anonymous said...

06:25 / 10:29

just because YOU dont see the 'need' to have those firearms doesnt mean the Right shouldnt exist. 6:25 even said you have a semi-auto .22? so you draw the line between rimfire 22 and ceterfire 223. thats you. i draw it right where its at- semi or full auto, and full auto has been restricted since 1934.

as for 'thinking on my own', i am. my entire family served in the military defending all the Bill of Rights. just because you want to hand some of them over doesnt mean i'm going to. if you dont want a black rifle, thats your choice, but dont speak on my behalf because my choice is different, and i spent my time defending that right.

Anonymous said...

6.25 and 10.29 the point is once they get started where and when will they stop and what will make them stop i am a law obiding person who owns guns and i will be damned if i give any of them up for any reason

Anonymous said...

Then why do you need that long range bolt action assassins sniper rifle for hunting?

If your not a good enough sportsman to stalk game and get closer you should not be hunting.

Let us know when you get it?

Anonymous said...

Burn this into your brain


First they came for the "assault" rifles,
and I didn't speak out because I didn't own any "assault" rifles.

Then they came for the military pattern "semi automatic" rifles and pistols,
and I didn't speak out because I didn't own any military pattern "semi automatic" rifles or pistols.

Then they came for the "magazine fed" manually operated rifles and shot guns,
and I didn't speak out because I didn't own any "magazine fed" manually operated rifles or shot guns.

Then they came for the "single shot" rifles, shot guns and revolvers,
and I didn't speak out because I didn't own any "single shot" rifles, shot guns or revolvers.

Then they came for the last lowly .22 caliber rimfire rifles and revolvers,
and I didn't speak out because I didn't own any lowly .22 caliber rimfire rifles or revolvers .

Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.

Anonymous said...

Did everyone forget that "assault rifles" are used in LESS THAT 3% of gun crime? This last one in Texas was pistols. Perhaps we should revoke all concealed carry permits and confiscate them....

Anonymous said...

Ok everyone! Hand in all your guns that arent exactly like this guys. Only HIS are acceptable. Funny part is, I can almost guarantee that his "semi auto 22" holds at least 10 rounds. Congrats sir, you are now in possession of an "assault rifle" and you are a criminal. Please hand in your 22 or go to prison

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...
First of all ANYONE that kills another has to be on drugs. NO normal person kills another person. We need to look at all the drugs doctors give to kids and people. Side effects !!! Crazy ness. Also we need to look at all the video games that are violent and the people think after you shoot someone they just get back up and run like the videos. Is't videos what THEY claim was the cause of the mass shooting????? GUNS do not kill people DO. We need to control PEOPLE DRS and DRUGS Prescription drugs that they give to our children so they can be sombies and not bother their parents. Thank You Mr Metcalfe for relizing that guns don't kill people do. I will vote for you.

Thursday, January 24, 2013 at 11:15:00 AM EST

ARE YOU SERIOUS... Drugs is the cause of murders!!.. Really??

This is off the topic of guns.. But this just irrotated me... A babysitter and 65 year old babysitter watched my 11 year old daughter drown... She wasn't on any drugs or medications and neither was my daughter... But she stated to the police at the time that she thought my daughter was joking when she was yelling help... So you think drugs is the cause... THINK AGAIN!!! You don't have to be on any drugs to be an idiot.... oh and as far as the guns and the constitution... Walk in my door and see what happens... Yeh I believe in the right to have any and all types of guns. Its my God given right.. Oh and No I didnt' shoot the babysitter.. But, just so you know.. I do take perscription drugs.. So now What?

Anonymous said...

"God given right to own a gun"

REALLY? Is this what Jesus said whilst hanging on the cross?

No wonder so many poeple think gun owners are STUPID.

Anonymous said...

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Anonymous said...

A factEvery mass school shooting in the last 15 years the shooter has been or in withdrawal from psychiatric drugs. 11year old to adults aged 37 years who had either committed suicide or mass shootings. The one thing every one of them had in common was that they were on a prescription psychotropic drug or combination of same such as Prozac, Zoloft,Ritalin,Luvox,Paxill,Ambien and others.

Anonymous said...

Finally a politician who doesn't put his wet finger in the air to see which direction the political wind is blowing...

Anonymous said...

Okay....Under this leadership it is okay to send free weapons of mass destruction to a Anti-American country. In the tune of 20 f-16s fighter jets and 200 armored tanks. To a muslim american hating country, that could be used against us in the future.
But it isnt okay for its own citizens to have adequate arms. Do i trust this kind of leadership?
Heeeeellllllll NO!

Scott said...

For those who keep citing the "Supremacy Clause", you need to re-educate yourself on Article VI. This only applies to constitutional laws. Since the 2nd Amendment is a constitutional law, no judge; unless it is a judge who likes to legislate from the bench, will find in favor of the Federal Government.

Anonymous said...

Scott 11:46. You forget about the commerce clause. It gives the federal government or congress the right to regulate commerce and in one case upheld by the supreme court, (United States v. Rybar) it stated the federal government had a right to regulate home-made machine guns.

So, they already regulate "arms" as defined by the 2nd amendment. That's why you can't legally have full auto guns or grenades

The supreme court ruled they can put limits on your rights and it is constitutional. They can limit your access to certain “arms” and it's constitutional because you still have access to other common “arms”.

The assault weapons ban of 1994 wasn't challenged by the NRA because they knew they would lose and it would become case law.

So 1, congress has the right to regulate the sale of guns (commerce) and 2 they have a right to limit what "arms" you can have access to or own. All constitutional.

So, there you have it. Supremacy Clause is valid and any laws put in place similar to the AWB of 1994 will be constitutional and overrule any state law such as this until the supreme court says so (that it's not constitutional) , not Metcalfe or any other state politician or law can say it's un-constitutional. Re-educate yourself.