Archive

ShareThis Page
Editorial: Pa. officials make moves on guns | TribLIVE.com
Editorials

Editorial: Pa. officials make moves on guns

Tribune-Review
| Friday, December 14, 2018 4:33 p.m
542451265988bfbc2e64b15649ec974d77ed989a5445
A Boston police special operations law enforcement officer carries an assault-style rifle near where police say an officer was shot, Sunday, Sept. 23, 2018, in Boston's South End neighborhood. Police say the suspect in the shooting, that they say resulted in the officer suffering non-life-threatening injuries, has been taken into custody. (AP Photo/Steven Senne)

After a shooting, there are always calls for action.

The action usually gets mired in muck, from the responses that it’s too early to do anything while people grieve to the accusations of playing politics to the all-too-short wait until another tragedy captures the public’s attention.

Pittsburgh, and Pennsylvania, are actually doing something. Less than seven weeks since the Tree of Life synagogue shooting in Squirrel Hill, Mayor Bill Peduto stood with Gov. Tom Wolf, city council members and state legislators and announced action.

They aren’t starting at the top. They aren’t addressing federal regulation. They are doing what is in reach, proposing a ban on assault rifles within Pittsburgh city limits.

Pittsburgh, after all, is where authorities say Robert Bowers opened fire with an assault rifle and hand guns, murdering 11 people in a house of worship. Two police officers were shot responding. It makes sense that a community so profoundly affected would want to take steps to respond.

But will it work?

A state law prevents cities from taking gun laws into their own hands. That’s where Wolf and the legislators came in, vowing to take action to roll that back.

The question is whether that will work. Pennsylvania is famously a state that appreciates firearms. No one is going to forget Barack Obama’s 2008 comment about clinging to guns and religion, a remark that was aimed at the Keystone State and hit home hard.

But then there’s Sen. Pat Toomey, the Republican who was narrowly swept into his second term on Donald Trump’s coat tails.

In a meeting with the Tribune-Review Monday, Toomey talked about what will be coming up in Washington as the new Congress is seated, with Democrats holding the House of Representatives. He sees a future for the Manchin-Toomey bill, the proposal he authored with Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin of neighboring West Virginia.

Manchin-Toomey was introduced in the wake of the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary, which happened six years ago Friday, when 26 people — 20 of them first graders — were massacred by a young man with an assault rifle and two hand guns.

Manchin-Toomey died in the Senate in April 2013. It received just four Republican votes: Toomey, Susan Collins of Maine, Mark Kirk of Illinois and John McCain of Arizona. McCain died this year, and Kirk has since been replaced by Democrat Tammy Duckworth, but with Republicans still holding the Senate, it’s left to see if Toomey and Collins would be enough to help a reincarnated bill become law.

Toomey said he is a gun owner and a Second Amendment supporter, but that he believes strongly in background checks. What he doesn’t want to see is Democrats overreaching what he believes is possible and reasonable, like his bill, in favor of something more aggressive.

Maybe neither the Pittsburgh proposal or the federal law will happen. Maybe neither will work. Maybe they will.

But it is good to see a real start to a conversation about what needs to be done. The important thing is that the conversation not be abandoned.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.