Pennsylvania Bill Would Outlaw Loaded Guns in Vehicles

Pennsylvania State Representative Carolyn Comitta wants to do something about gun owners road rage in her state. Her solution: outlaw loaded firearms in vehicles.

“H.B. 2669 would prohibit a person from carrying a loaded firearm in any vehicle, with the exception of firearms related to game hunting, law enforcement, military personnel or security drivers. A person who is found carrying a loaded firearm in a vehicle would be charged with a misdemeanor for a first offense, and a first-degree misdemeanor for a second or subsequent offense.”

This “common sense gun safety measure” will no doubt save countless lives on the Keystone State’s highways and byways.

“It might seem like a simple change, but studies show that drivers who have a firearm in their vehicle may be more prone to anger and more likely to engage in aggressive driving than those who did not have a gun … I and most gun safety proponents still protect Second Amendment rights and commonsense gun safety measures.,” Comitta said.

Funny, but proximity to a firearm has never had an effect on our state of mind, let alone the way we drive.

Like most anti-gun legislators, Comitta is probably blissfully unaware of how quickly a driver can slip a magazine into an unloaded semi-automatic handgun. And it’s a good thing, too, because if she manages to get her bill signed into law, law-abiding Pennsylvanians — like all Americans — use their firearms far more often to defend themselves and their families than they do to commit crimes.

For some reason, though, #gunsense pols like Comitta never seem to mention all of those defensive gun uses. Wonder why?

Pennsylvania Moms Demand Action Carolyn Commita Gun Control gunsense

courtesy dailylocal.com

comments

  1. avatar Rokurota says:

    “Studies show”? Then show us the studies.

    1. avatar GS650G says:

      all available on Bloomberg and Shannon’s web site. No bias of course

    2. avatar Marcus (Aurelius) Payne says:

      More importantly: “…may…”

      1. avatar Geoff "Mess with the Bull, get the Horns" PR says:

        It will do something else – Introduce the possibility of an accidental (negligent) discharge by carriers loading and unloading guns as they get into and out of vehicles…

        1. avatar what would spock say says:

          you beat me to it. so true. not to mention all sorts of unintended brandishing situations. cant wait for bills like these that get signed into law making their way up to supreme court for repeated smackdowns for the next 20yrs. make a stupid law, run the risk of it getting smacked down with SC precedent that paints them into all sorts of corners going forward.

        2. avatar Geoff "Mess with the Bull, get the Horns" PR says:

          “not to mention all sorts of unintended brandishing situations.”

          That’s not a bug, it’s a *feature*.

          Like cops hanging outside bars at closing time…

      2. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Did they just not have the space to add “.. or may not”?

        Has she thought of simply (common sense?) outlawing shooting people? Wouldn’t that take care of it?

    3. avatar pg2 says:

      The studies are locked in the same drawer as the vaccine safety studies showing vaccines to be safe.

      1. avatar JasonM says:

        The studies are locked in the same drawer as the vaccine safety studies showing vaccines to be safe.

        Those vaccine studies have been published in journals for decades (many of them are free to read online, but I’d guess you lack the scientific knowledge to understand them). They prove that vaccine side effects are rare and generally mild in comparison to the diseases they prevent. But, hey, if you want to risk getting polio or smallpox to avoid a vaccine that puts less aluminum and mercury in your body than you get from wearing your tinfoil hat while eating a fish sandwich, go start an anti-science colony somewhere, with the flat earthers and moon hoaxers.

        P.S. Please take Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey with you to that stupid people colony.

        1. avatar Pg2 says:

          One thing I’ve noticed about people who claim there are valid vaccine safety studies, they never cite any. Never.

        2. avatar Pg2 says:

          By the way, vaccines can and do cause autism. But thanks for playing.

      2. avatar CC says:

        PG2 Actually you have it backwards. Anti-vaccine nuts overwhelming tend to be pro-gun control and almost all left wing, at double the rate of conservatives.
        It is the anti-vaccine nuts who use the same failed logic as anti-gun nuts.

        Guns ARE like vaccines. Sure one can come up with a few instances of harm but in fact instances of where the gun is used to prevent harm are orders of magnitude more common.

        So please stop bringing in your wacko claims against vaccines here, you sound exactly like Shannon Watts

        1. avatar Arandom Dude says:

          In my experience, anti vaccine nuts seem to be pretty evenly split between the some of the most hardcore, white, right wing Jesus freaks, and kale-munching, Prius driving white liberal arts majors who believe in traditional Chinese medicine and are really all things hemp, from hemp fabric to food to skin care products. Also a decent number of black folks think vaccines are a government conspiracy to keep them down. Anti-vacc nuts are a diverse group.

        2. avatar Pg2 says:

          @CC, you’re very likely an auto bot profile, but I’ll respond anyway……so instead of actually posting something factual, aka an actual study, you post the incorrect left-right deflection…again…that’s all you have on the subject?

        3. avatar trollFeeder says:

          Feel free to peruse the study mentioned below at your leisure. There are dozens more like it. There is no evidence that vaccines cause autism. Your assertions are patently false. Any pseudo-scientific study you may cite to the contrary has already been roundly rejected by the scientific community at large. Facebook may be interested in your opinions and feeling, but real, peer-reviewed science has no time and even less interest in your anecdotal experiences of “this blog i read…” and “but my friend’s kid…” or even “my kid got their flu shot and then got put on the spectrum”.

          Vaccines Are not Associated with Autism: An Evidence-based Meta-analysis of Case-control and Cohort Studies

          Taylor L, Swerdfeger A, Eslick G. Vaccine. 2014; 32: 3623-9.

          ​Authors of this article reviewed 10 studies (5 cohort and 5 case-control), involving over 1.25 million children to determine if a relationship between autism spectrum disorders (ASDs) and vaccines, MMR vaccine, thimerosal or mercury existed. While these 10 individual studies had not found relationships between MMR, mercury or thimerosal, and ASD, authors combined and analyzed the data from the 5 cohort studies and did the same for the 5 case-control studies.

          ​After performing the meta-analysis of both the five cohort studies and the five case-control studies, authors found no evidence of a link between vaccine receipt and risk of developing autism or ASDs. This conclusion stands when authors looked at specific MMR vaccines, cumulative mercury dosage, and thimerosal exposure, and any connection to ASDs.

        4. avatar Pg2 says:

          @troll, glad to debunk your citation. You cited a paper that looks at looks at several papers, a meta analysis. This meta analysis looks at 1, that’s ONE vaccine(MMR), and 1 ingredient(thimerasol), that’s ONE ingredient, and uses epidemiological data comparing vaccinated groups against other vaccinated groups(tobacco science) and tries to make the claim that vaccines don’t cause autism. You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to see the manipulation of data used when comparing smokers, er vaccinated groups against each other and claiming exposure doesn’t cause X. And you do understand kids now receive 69 doses of 16 vaccines, that’s SIXTEEN vaccines by the time they’re 18 years old-that number has nearly tripled since 1983. There’s no inert placebo control group in your meta analysis, and the paper doesn’t even ask the right question, let alone provide a credible answer to the question if vaccines, that’s VACCINES,(not vaccine) causes autism. Feel free to cite any other paper or study you feel provides credible evidence that vaccines do not cause autism. Debunking tobacco science like this is easy.

        5. avatar Pg2 says:

          @troll, the link you used for your username, brings you to healthychildren.org, a link several posters on this forum have unsuccessfully used in this debate. And the irony is rich with your industry(industry that profits immensely from vaccine uptake)sponsored link, the same sponsors say this about the 2nd Amendment:

          https://www.healthychildren.org/English/safety-prevention/all-around/Pages/Where-We-Stand-Gun-Safety.aspx

          And this: https://www.healthychildren.org/English/our-mission/aap-in-action/Pages/AAP-Condemns-Ruling-against-Physicians-Right-to-Counsel-on-Firearm-Safety.aspx

          Providing more credibility that the same forces attempting to destroy our 2nd Amendment rights are the same forces attenpting to remove our rights to make our own informed medical decisions. The propaganda and talking points are almost identical. Glad you cleared that up.

        6. avatar Pg2 says:

          @TrollEOS, also, you do know 2of the governments top vaccine/autism experts have changed their positions and have testified under oath in depositions that they know vaccines cause autism in a certain subset of children, and that we don’t know how large the subset is?

        7. avatar pg2 says:

          @TrollEOS By the way, The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) gave Harvard Medical School a $1 million dollar grant to track VAERS reporting at Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare for 3 years and to create an automated reporting system which would revolutionize the VAERS reporting system- transforming it from “passive” to “active.” The results were not favorable, and a quote directly from the report….“Adverse events from drugs and vaccines are common, but underreported. […] Likewise, fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported. Low reporting rates preclude or slow the identification of ‘problem’ drugs and vaccines that endanger public health. New surveillance methods for drug and vaccine adverse effects are needed.”
          TrollEOS, you’re no dummy, you do the 1% math….In 2016 alone, VAERS(Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System) received 59,117 vaccine adverse event reports. Among those reports were 432 deaths, 1,091 permanent disabilities, 4,132 hospitalizations, and 10,274 emergency room visits.

          http://truthsnitch.com/2017/10/24/cdc-silence-million-dollar-harvard-project-charged-upgrading-vaccine-safety-surveillance-system/#sthash.ZtGV7Wix.dpbs

    4. avatar CC says:

      “Studies show”? Then show us the studies.

      Oh there are studies, every one of them from institutions or researchers who work with and get grants from gun control groups but still get peer reviewed and published. They are purchased “science.” What do you think happens when $450 million dollars gets pumped into medical research institutions by major gun control advocacy funders (like Bloomberg giving $300 million to Johns Hopkins research program).

      There are two types making htis claim on “aggression and gun ownership”:
      1) types that look at incidents, but do not parse between legal and illegal gun owners, with those illegal gun owners, owning illegally because they have prior criminal histories. That is the same as “gun owning homes are more dangerous” claim based in including the 4% of gun owners who are felons or other violent criminals and commit 90% of gun crime. when you control for them the remaining gun owning households, ie those like you and I, are much safer than homes with no gun at all

      2) the type that general survey a small group asking them if they feel more aggressive with a gun. The line of questions on “aggression” are leading questions (like push polling) or spurious. They are no different than “peer reviewed studies” that claim eating chicken on the bone makes children more aggressive than a mashed up chicken patty. The chicken on the bone study posited that children who don’t sit still and obey arbitrary orders are “more aggressive.” Ie that was actually a study about compliance and docility in the face of arbitrary instructions from authorities, not aggressive violence at all. so if you want your kid to be obedient to arbitrary commands (“don’t talk to your friends at lunchtime” or “don;t get up and play”) like good mindless sheep, then feed them minced nuggets instead of a chicken leg, and mashed corn instead of corn on the cob.
      https://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2014/04/30/Cornell-study-finds-children-who-eat-chicken-on-the-bone-are-more-aggressive/7851398872882/

      1. avatar rt66paul says:

        Who needs firearms for protection more than ex felons? The police would prefer they are back in jail, they won’t help them. They live in sketchy neighborhoods, do not make much money and get bothered by the prison gangs for support. Most ex-felons did not use a gun in the crime that got them their ticket to prison, and being able to protect themselves from criminals should be ok.

        1. avatar Frank says:

          80% off all US murder is committed by felons on the streets. Felons are people who have victimized others, they tend to do it over and over.

          it is precisely the number of felons on the streets that is the causal relationship to how much murder a jurisdiction has.

          That is why as US incarceration rates rose for 20 years, US murder rates plunged, falling 61%; and as incarceration rates recently went down, and exactly where and when incarceration recently went down (eg Balt, DC) releasing more felons onto the streets, murder rates rose.

          Felons are proven predators. If they are more likely to be victims of murder because that is a risk of their own predation and criminality, it is no reason for them to be armed

      2. avatar Pg2 says:

        Where are your links/citations for the valid vaccine safety studies you pretend exist? Oh right, that’s so right wing of me to ask for actual proof of something and not just accept your ad hominem Shannon Watts references as proof…..

        1. avatar John E> says:

          Here is one but you may not understand the big words: https://infectioncontrol.tips/2016/04/13/1832/

        2. avatar Pg2 says:

          Thanks for the link, I’ve seen these papers before, as paid trolls have tried using these online to convince passive readers that vaccines are safe. Every study in your link is an epidemiological study, not RCT inert placebo studies. If you don’t understand why this matters, epidemiological studies Are not adequate for drug or vaccine testing. Pharmaceuticals are required to undergo rigorous RCT inert placebo testing before they are approved. And even with this rigorous RCT placebo testing, how many pharmaceuticals are still pulled off the market after they are released because they are found to be dangerous? Vaccines have no safety testing. All the epidemiological studies in the link you provided all look at only 1 vaccine, and 1ingredient, thimerasol, and compare the data of vaccinated groups against other vaccinated groups. Not science, not real science anyway, it’s called tobacco science as that’s exactly what the tobacco industry attempted to use for years as their proof smoking did not cause cancer…they would use epidemiological data and compare groups of smokers against other smokers. Nice try John E, and thanks for playing.

        3. avatar Pg2 says:

          @John E, CC, JasonM, ad astra et al, Try this link. https://www.scribd.com/doc/220807175/153-Research-Papers-Supporting-the-Vaccine-Autism-Link

          Keep in mind, these papers don’t prove anything, but they certainly open the door for more questions and for demanding valid safety tests for these products being given to 1day old infants and developing infants and toddlers.

        4. avatar Alan says:

          How come, putting it politely, the mixing of metafores, i.e. firearms and medical treatment, I wonder.

        5. avatar Pg2 says:

          @Alan, I’ve been pointing out for years the near identical propaganda campaign being waged against the 2A and being waged against our rights to make our own informed medical decisions. When we forfeit our informed consent rights to the pharmaceutical industry via the state, our gun rights, among other individual rights, will become meaningless artifacts.

  2. avatar Michael Buley says:

    One more example of those who are presumably ‘our servants’ — elected by us to serve us, to enforce and uphold the Constitution and laws of this land — telling us what the natural and absolute right to own guns actually means.

    ‘Shall not be infringed.’ It could not be more absolute, and for reasons that could not be more important.

    The servants have become our masters.

  3. avatar Jason says:

    PA resident checking in. This won’t pass. Not going to happen.

    1. avatar Quasimofo says:

      I sure hope you’re right. My concern is the growing # of NYC metro refugees that are migrating to PA and how, in time, that could lead to the eventual passage of garbage like this bill, much like how CA migrants are ruining the PNW and CO.

    2. avatar frank speak says:

      this is what happens when the state legislature rams through a poorly thought out domestic relations bill with onerous firearms provisions…which inspires the weasels to come out of the woodwork…[“give ’em an inch…”]

  4. avatar Quasimofo says:

    Having a PA license (or a reciprocal license) to carry is not excepted with this bill. Otherwise, it is already illegal for unlicensed non-LEOs to have a loaded rifle, shotgun or handgun in a vehicle in PA under 6106.

    Pointless, feel-good legislation…

    1. avatar Jason says:

      license to conceal does include the vehicle.

      1. avatar Quasimofo says:

        Yup. Edited my original post to clarify. All this bill would do is make it illegal for licensed carriers to have a loaded gun in their car.

        1. avatar Jason says:

          which is bullshit

        2. avatar Quasimofo says:

          Yup, it’s the kind of BS, virtue signalling gun control legislation that appeals to people who don’t know sh!t about the laws already on the books.

        3. avatar Dunsho says:

          Even with LTCF (ccw) it’s still illegal in PA to have loaded long gun in vehicles.

  5. avatar GS650G says:

    So the carry permit would be essentially limited to outside of a vehicle. Nice.
    PA is sliding down the rabbit hole rather quickly. These legislatures and the current governor have not had a chance to read the PA constitution it seems.

    1. avatar frank speak says:

      sad to see a fair amount of republicans on-board with this nonsense….

      1. avatar CC says:

        sad to see a fair amount of republicans on-board with this nonsense….
        Err, no. Th GOP committee members have ALL announced opposed, and every single supporter, every one, is a DEMOCRAT.
        https://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/billinfo/bill_history.cfm?syear=2017&sind=0&body=H&type=B&bn=2669

        click the names of the supporters/sponsors and see, Democrat, Democrat, Democrat, Democrat.

        Allentown papers say this is a 100% partisan Democrat bill.

        1. avatar frank speak says:

          plenty of them voted for that flawed domestic relations bill…only 5 opposed…thankfully mine was one of them…

        2. avatar Frank says:

          The bill in the story has zero GOP support, every one of its co-sponsors is a Democrat, meaning it is a fully partisan initiative

          The separate domestic relations bill is also bad but had huge public support, and yes some 100% safe GOP legislators were able to vote against it.

  6. Fine folks of Pennsylvania. You need to promptly fire this woman’s ass! She’s a brainless Liberal DemoCommie Politcian! A self-proclaimed tassel loafer tyrant! An Authoritarian for phony gun safety! This woman has failed to uphold her oath to protect the Constitution and the Bill of Rights! Instead ,paying with lip service! Don’t wind up like the residents of M-assachusetts! Where politicians of her ilk have informed residents of the state of Massachusetts that “MA residents DON’T have any 2nd Amendment rights in this state! Only a barely tolerated privilege allowed by the politicians and local law enforcement community! This is the what’s ahead! Fear the Future!”

    1. avatar Hannibal says:

      Yeah, she’s an idiot, and that how she got elected. It’s a feature, not a bug.

      The only hope for PA with this nonsense is that the other legislators ignore her entirely.

    2. avatar frank speak says:

      most of these looney-tunes seem to emanate from the eastern part of the state…and the closer you get to new jersey the worse it gets…

  7. avatar Manse Jolly says:

    In SC, all residents may carry, loaded, in vehicle. No permit or permission slip.

    Must be in glove box or center console, unless CWP.

    We don’t have blood running down the streets/highways here…….weird huh?

    1. avatar Michael Buley says:

      Yes, and one of the reasons you do not have blood running down the streets: the good people can defend themselves. So the bad guys back off and go to easier prey.

    2. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Likewise TX, gun has to be out of sight. Some other states, where the gun must be visible. Is this freaking STUPID, or what? I think, in TX, if you have carry permit, gun can be in view (since open carry), but laws are so conflicting and stupid it makes my head hurt.

    3. avatar frank speak says:

      PA has handgun registration…Ohio doesn’t…virtually no difference in the crime rate….

      1. avatar frank speak says:

        West virginia has constitutional carry….ohio is considering it…good luck with ever getting that to pass in PA…

  8. avatar Jason says:

    Studies show that potholes cause more road rage. I know for a fact this is true. Fix the damn roads bitch.

    1. avatar pg2 says:

      People who fail to signal turns with their blinkers probably causes more road rage than most things….solution, have car tase the driver if he/she fails to use turn signal within reasonable amount of distance prior to turn.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Should have built-in delay until car reaches 70 mph before tasing. With the obvious exception, everybody knows if you’re not going to use turn signals, you have to drive a BMW.

        1. avatar GluteusMaximus says:

          Oh my God. BMWs and turn signals. How true you are my friend

        2. avatar Pg2 says:

          Lol, out here nobody uses them, or best case scenario the blinker goes on as the vehicle is making the turn.

  9. avatar Wiregrass says:

    We are already required to have an LTCF to carry firearms in vehicles unless you can prove you’re headed to or from a gunshop or gunsmith, a range, or hunting. LTCF holders aren’t the ones likely to be shooting at other drivers. This waste of taxes has no basis for her claims, and knows that most of the idiots that vote for her in this state have no clue about the laws on the books. Not likely to happen, but annoying as sand gnats just the same.

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      Basis? Who needs a basis? In California, CCW holders were banned from carrying on all school campuses, public and private, including colleges and universities, without the permission of the school. No one knows why this was proposed, since there had NEVER been an incident involving a CCW holder on ANY California campus. Some schools (about 5) gave blanket approval to carry on campus with a CCW. The Legislature was APPALLED! So they amended the law to delete the provision for carry with permission. Why? Hell if I know–there still hasn’t been a single incident on a school campus involving a CCW holder. Well, here was one, where a school vice principal was arrested for having a revolver in his brief case. (How someone knew it was there is a mystery.) Charges were dropped because he had a CCW and he was at one of the schools with a blanket carry approval. In short, facts don’t matter.

    2. avatar frank speak says:

      illegal to have a loaded firearm in your car while hunting [in PA]…why wouldn’t she know that?…obviously this simple-minded bitch hasn’t done her homework!….

  10. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

    “may be more prone to anger”

    May be. Not will be, but “may be.”

    I just did a quick “study”, and it showed that if you put a “D” after your name, you might get seriously retarded and say/do stupid stuff.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Your study was a waste. Everybody knew that, already.

  11. avatar James Ivy says:

    I stopped being so aggressive when driving because of the responsibility that is required when carrying a firearm, in fact if someone is mentally prone to murder in anger then…….yea

    1. avatar Jason says:

      So you’re not allowed to get mad when you are carrying? If a person deserves a middle finger they’re going to get one, regardless if I am carrying or not!

      1. avatar what would spock say says:

        My experience was similar to James’. when i got a ccw I was less prone to want to take a road rage situation further because I didn’t want to risk losing it. I still get mad, but I no longer open the window and scream all sorts of vile stuff back at them. I suppose it depends on the person. I dont find that firearms embolden my aggressiveness at all, quite the oppose as it makes me more careful and conscientious, though I suppose for some it may do that very thing. Kinda like booze I guess…some become belligerent assholes and others (like me) get silly and ignorant.

  12. avatar The Rookie says:

    Will this bill also ban loaded tire irons in cars? Or for that matter, loaded cars? Because both of those are used in road rage incidents, too.

  13. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

    Seriously, chick? At age 66, this is how you want to pass your (remaining) time? Playing tricks on and setting traps for law abiding firearms owners? Any road rager bent on murder would just pop in a magazine and do it. That’s if, a big if, they followed this law in the first place.

    All this will do is inconvenience lawful carriers and possibly dissuade some from carrying at all. Well, that and get some people killed as you compel them to confront evil unarmed.

    Geez, assuming she really believes the whole litany of “gun safety” propaganda, or even if she doesn’t, but just wants civilian disarmament by hook or by crook, is any of this still worth it at her age?

    Go spend time travelling, reading, drinking, dancing, playing with your grandkids, or anything else. Or is the daily grind of trying to impose tyranny really that enjoyable a pastime in itself?

  14. avatar Gman says:

    Funny, but proximity to a firearm has never had an effect on our state of mind, let alone the way we drive.

    I beg to differ. I used to think that Heinlein’s quote, “An armed society is a polite society” meant that people would be polite around those who carried a gun. I see now that was wrong. Especially since most of us carry concealed and hence that would have no impact on how others behave. But carrying has had a big impact upon how I behave. I’m a NYer by birth, nuff said? Yet now that I carry I find myself not getting upset about being tailgated or cut off. I avoid contentious situations. I am more polite to others. And it has had a positive impact upon the way I drive. I drive much more conservatively and am far more courteous than my inner NYer wishes to be.

    Not wishing to be cliche, but with great power comes great responsibility. And I think this is how the majority of us who carry feel.

    1. avatar CC says:

      I completely agree. Probably existing criminals with illegal guns — which is already illegal in Pennsylvanian and not going to be affected by this law which is not even an enhanced penalty for illegal carry — get more aggressive; and legal CCW or even people just legally transporting get less aggressive in the presence of a firearm.

      I noticed the the state reps cosponsoring this come from urban areas of Pa. with a lot of criminals; ie people stabbing each other, chocking each other, shooting each other with illegal guns, beating each other, raping each other, at very high rates, and want to blame legal gun owners.

  15. avatar Defens says:

    So assume this passes, for the moment. Which is more likely to cause shootings – road rage or accidental. A lawfully permitted concealed carrier in his/her car with a loaded pistol in a holster on his/her person. Or a lawfully-permitted person who now has to hurriedly, often in bad weather and while trying to not telegraph his actions, loading or unloading the pistol each and every time he or she enters or leaves the car? I’d say that excessive gun handling under rushed conditions would result in far more accidental discharges than the annual number of road rage shootings.

    1. avatar Gman says:

      Excellent point. One I have argued with one of our local ranges recently. They have this absurd requirement of only having one gun on the bench at a time. They simply cannot explain why they have that rule but they do. I suspect it is an insurance requirement. But I argue that it is far safer to place all unloaded firearms to be used on the bench at the beginning and not try to swap them out continuously. Even when the number of guns I brought exceeds the space on the bench I bring my bag to the bench and then swap them out making sure they are unloaded and always facing downrange. But this range requires all bags to be behind the firing line.

    2. avatar Gman says:

      Not to mention the public optics of it all. Who among us wears our gat while seatbelted? I always store it in a pocket or mounted holster. AND I ALWAYS swivel pivot my head before getting in an out with it. I do everything possible to avoid being spotted handling a weapon in public. Sometimes, that means waiting a few minutes before pulling it out of the car and fitting it to my body. Imagine Debra Democrat spotting you LOADING your gun in your car and then walking into the grocery store! OMFG. The MWAG calls will skyrocket.

  16. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    in Kentucky your car is considered constitutionally, an extension of your home. So you don’t need a permit to carry a loaded gun in your car. You can park your car in the lot of your anti gun employer. Perhaps this is a way some states can go to protect automobile carry?

    1. avatar Clit Yeastwood says:

      Good point, unfortunately States where the pantsuit Nazi want to prohibit more and more are probably already not as constitutional as Kentucky and the likes, so you may not have this layer of protection to begin with.

  17. avatar Pawl from Florida says:

    Here we have another Nazi in a pantsuit using a family’s tragedy to make a name for herself. I cannot figure out who votes for these opportunistic hags. Like she is really concerned about this family. How long will it be before these trolls outlaw urinals ?

  18. avatar Chip in Florida says:

    Does anyone know how many cases of armed road rage happen in her district/state?

    I am guessing it is a very, very small numbe r.

    1. avatar CC says:

      Whatever the total number you can bet 99% are people with illegal guns who already have violent criminal histories and this law does not even increase the penalty if with an illegal gun.

      another law punishing law abiding gun owners, who are safer to be around than even people who own no guns, for actions of criminals with guns (or knives, or tire irons or fists)

  19. avatar Clit Yeastwood says:

    So the law abiding criminal (I know, I know) will just have to park the car somewhere and get out to load the firearm then he can go shoot people. That’s smart!

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      FINALLY!! We will have them under control!

  20. avatar Ton E says:

    Nothing like government who wants to tell you how you can keep a piece of your property inside another piece of your property!!

  21. avatar billy hill says:

    Shes an idiot, its against PA game code to have a loaded long gun in the car already so why is she making an exception for game hunting? In PA you cannot hunt from your vehicle unless you are 100% disabled and even then its not allowed on state land only private. In PA the game wardens will ticket you if you have your rifle loaded in bed of your truck while your undressing and packing up at the end of your hunt. Ask me how I know…

    1. avatar Wiregrass says:

      Yes this week is inline muzzleloader deer season. I made sure I removed the primer from the breech plug before I opened the hatch on my Jeep each time I put the rifle in. I’m still not sure if that qualifies as unloaded, but it doesn’t seem to make any sense to take it any farther.

    2. avatar CC says:

      No. look at the text of the law. This proposal is about making it illegal for Valid Carry permit holders to have a loaded gun in the car on their person, or even locked in the console or glove box.

      In 90% of Pennsylvanian people drive to work, to their business, to the bank, or any other place to carry. this means a person with a permit to carry who walks to work in Philly legal carrying a loaded a gun is not penalized, but anyone driving to work with that same licence will now will be committing a crime.

  22. avatar Jay in Florida says:

    Just another dumber then average Politician.
    We should lock this one up for such a stupid “common sense” thought.

  23. avatar Pa John says:

    Pennsylvania Constitution: The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned. Art. 1, § 21 (enacted 1790, art. IX, § 21).

    If you are from a different state, you can quickly see if your state’s constitution includes something like this as well:
    http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/statecon.htm

    1. avatar Alan says:

      It would seem that the reference to the Pennsylvania Constitution clearly knocks whatever legs this proposal might have had out from under it. Respecting the fact of the existence of any gun laws in this state, and the altogether clear words of the constitution is curious to say the least. By the way, an entirely reasonable assumption about Article 2 would be its application to the law abiding citizenry, the “rights” of criminals not being involved, actually being nullified through their violations of the laws that the rest of us live by.

  24. avatar GunnyGene says:

    Makes me happy I reside in MS. 🙂

  25. avatar anonymoose says:

    Governor Bob Taft (R) of Ohio wants his law back.

  26. avatar MAGA says:

    Unconstitutional laws are like hearts. They’re made to be broken.

    Hopefully it will be a nonissue and not pass anyway.

  27. avatar Ark says:

    Other people going psychotic with road rage is in the top three most likely defensive scenarios, and you wanna specifically disarm me from defending against them? Fuck you, lady. The person who goes nuts and tries to kill me over a merge isn’t going to obey your stupid law.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Good point!!

  28. avatar Ralph says:

    What a cnut.

  29. avatar TheOriginal JohnO says:

    Guns for “game hunting” get a pass? That’s already illegal in my state to help prevent road hunting, and I would presume in most states as well. Anyone know the situation in Pennsylvania?

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Really? Why not just outlaw “road hunting” instead?

      1. avatar TheOriginal JohnO says:

        It is, this is supposed to help hold it down. Also, it has since occurred to me that it only applies to long guns in my state. There are always a few NDs connected with a carload of drunk pheasant hunters stopping and piling out with their loaded shotguns like a Chinese fire drill.

  30. avatar Greg M. says:

    It would be cool if this little diatribe included any useful information, such as whether her bill had any co-sponsors, had been through committee, or when any sort of vote were to take place. I guess Dan got too tuckered out whining to write out any vital details. Maybe he needs to get more rest.

  31. avatar MyName says:

    So a slightly unhinged guy driving a 25,000,000 grain object is not an issue unless he is carrying, say, 15 or so 124 grain objects. Got it.

  32. avatar Nate says:

    Will never pass, she’s proving lack of knowledge of existing laws. We can’t have any loaded long guns in the car, specifically due to hunting laws. I mean, if I can trade my loaded carry firearm in the car for a loaded AR or AK on the passenger side… hmmm.

    Oh and let’s not mention the negligent discharge increases if people had to empty and load their firearms every time they got in and out of their vehicle.

    1. avatar frank speak says:

      pass one bad [and restrictive] law….and more get immediately proposed…there’s a lesson here for legislators…here’s hoping they’re listening….

    2. avatar CC says:

      Have you read the text of the law? This proposed law is aimed at PROHIBITING LICENCED CARRIERS, Pa. LTCF holders (their CCL) , from having a loaded gun on their person in either open or concealed in a car, in glove box or console of their car. that is now legal and common, something every licenced carrier does, and will be made illegal if this law passes.

      1. avatar Nate says:

        I was going off of her statement above saying ‘except for hunting purposes’ which is explicitly banned currently.

        My thought being if her statements in relation to the bill prove a lack of understanding of current firearms law, it would make it more difficult for her to get suppprt for it.

  33. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    Oddly, I cannot find evidence of the epidemic, nay plague, of CCW Road Rage deaths Rep Non-Representative, there, is so inspired to thwart with her new law.

    Thus, I must ask, what is the point of this law, besides, of course, encumbering something she doesn’t approve of, but can’t get honestly banned, and inconveniencing, criminalizing, n victimizing the bitterly clinging, deplorable, dregs who do such things n deserve what they get?

    Sometimes it seems they use the law to make yr life miserable because they just don’t like you. Make that “most of the time.”

  34. avatar Alan says:

    Something the lady all to conveniently forgets, which she might consider, people advising her also, that being as follows. Correct me if I’m wrong on the number, but in Pennsylvania there are more than 1,000,000 Pensylvanians with permits, courtesy of thee Coal and Iron Cops, aka the Pennsylvania State Police, to carry arms on or about their persons, Concealed. What about these carefully vetted people dear lady.

    1. avatar frank speak says:

      yeah,..remember how my old man would say how one group was indistinguishable from the other when it came to labor disputes…

  35. avatar Don says:

    1) she is ignorant of existing law. In pa you can not transport long arms loaded. Should probably stay away from issues she doesn’t know anything about.

    2) the most (albeit rarely) accident prone moments with handguns are holstering/unholstering and loading/unloading. Way to go forcing more of that to occur due to anti-gun pseudoscience.

  36. avatar Jim Macklin says:

    This bill should be titled MAKE CAR JACKERS SAFER

  37. avatar NJ2AZ says:

    Some years ago, i apparently ran over a piece of debris on the highway and it kicked up and hit the windshield of the person behind me.

    I know this because the person followed me to my house, boxed me in in my own driveway (my situation awareness was much worse at the time) and proceeded to yell at me, luckily i was able to deescalate the situation. One might argue this is evidence that one doesn’t need a firearm in the car, and yet the other side of the coin that if this guy wanted to do more than yell at me, i was dead to rights. I’m lucky he was only a partial wacko.

    There will always be a firearm in my car. I trust myself enough to never use it as a reason to escalate anything, but if i ever lord forbid some road raging idiot gives me no choice, id much prefer to have it.

  38. avatar dwight cimino says:

    She obviously needs never to lose another point on her IQ, . . . we have enough toads, . . . she is just another butt wipe liberal pandering to a stupid and gullible socialist / liberal crowd, . . . and she hopes she can cull enough voters from the fringe to make it in.

    Pennsylvania is doomed if they fall for that piece of trash and her little entourage in the other picture. They look like they all did a mass escape from the local mental detention society.

  39. avatar Barry says:

    She’s going after responsible, legally armed individuals in the state. How many pedestrians/other vehicle drivers have met their demise on the road due to distracted driving, being under the influence of alcohol, drugs? Nothing being brought up from Democrats here! Her term ends this year, we all need to vote her out.
    Vote please and be heard.

    1. avatar Alan says:

      Not quite sure as to where her district is, but it isn’t, so far as I can tell, where I live.

  40. avatar B says:

    I’m pretty involved in politics in PA. I know the folks mentioned in this article and in the picture above. I can tell you that the no conceal carry in car bill will not go anywhere, will be voted down.

  41. avatar Mike Stone says:

    Easy solution….stay out of PA

    1. avatar 10mm says:

      Pa is like General Custard(Surrounded)

  42. avatar james says:

    Studies show that unarmed law abiding citizens are easy prey for criminals.
    That is all.

    1. avatar Alan says:

      Simple solution to the problem presented by Carolyn and her supporters. It is commonly described as rejection by the voters.

  43. avatar Bill Hutchison says:

    No guns in police vehicles! What a blessing for criminals!

  44. avatar Scott says:

    If this should pass will her and or the local police Dept. be liable for carjackings or when a person is robbed in their car.

  45. avatar 10mm says:

    She’s from West Chester,Pa. Southeast part of state. Surprise surprise. Former Mayor of West Chester. Surrounded by those Red Shirts. Use to be Red Coats not long ago. S.E. is toxic. Actually the whole east part.

  46. avatar Michael says:

    The following is totally unscientific and your results may vary. I live in Arizona, there are probably more firearms in glove compartments, center consoles, and in holsters fastened to drivers seats than anywhere else in the U.S.ofA. All of the above methods of carry are legal. State law in Arizona does not recognize the concept of an unloaded firearm. All firearms are alway considered loaded under any and all circumstances. You don’t get all that many armed road rage incidents when you know the other driver has the legal ability and right to stop a dangerous display of armed felony stupid in a public place as soon as it starts. -30-

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email