A Pennsylvania state senator who plans to reintroduce three-day waiting period legislation soon is playing fast and loose with the facts while touting her bill.
According to a report at WTAJ.com, Democrat state Sen. Amanda Cappelletti plans to reintroduce Senate Bill 637 from the past legislative session. The measure would make all gun purchasers wait 72 hours to receive their firearm after passing their background check.
“One important element of a comprehensive approach to firearm violence is a waiting period for firearm transfers,” Cappelletti wrote in a memo to state lawmakers. “Under Pennsylvania law, there is no waiting period to buy a firearm and no licensure or permitting requirement. I will soon introduce legislation establishing a 72-hour waiting period for all firearm transfers in the Commonwealth.”
Also, in the memo, Cappelletti made some pretty bold claims about the effectiveness of waiting periods in reducing murders and suicides.
“Research has shown that waiting period laws reduce both suicides and violent crime,” she wrote. “Many studies suggest that most suicide survivors, for example, contemplated their actions for only a brief period of time—often less than 24 hours—before making a suicide attempt. More than 60 percent of firearm deaths are suicides; reducing a suicidal person’s access to highly lethal means is an important part of a comprehensive approach to suicide prevention. Similarly, studies suggest that some of the factors that incite violence against others, such as anger and rage, can be short-lived.”
Interestingly, Cappelletti did not cite any specific studies to support her claims. This may be because what she asserts is simply not true, according to a fact sheet from the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA).
“Waiting periods are arbitrary impositions with no effect on crime or suicide, introduce no additional investigative avenues and only burden law-abiding gun owners without changing how or when criminals obtain firearms,” the fact sheet states. “There is no evidence that waiting periods reduce suicides, homicides or mass shootings. No studies that identify causal effects have been identified by any of the independent literature reviews conducted since 2004.”
The fact sheet points out that waiting periods do not alter the background check process, as no additional investigative measures are taken regardless of the length of the waiting period imposed. Furthermore, according to NRA-ILA, research indicating that waiting periods have some positive effects is flawed.
“Recent research that purports to find that waiting periods reduce firearms-related deaths is fundamentally flawed, as it also finds that background checks increase gun homicides and that poverty is associated with a decrease in homicides,” the fact sheet states.
Another important fact that gun control advocates like Cappelletti tend to overlook is that most gun purchases aren’t for an individual’s first firearm.
“Most gun owners own more than one firearm, and a waiting period could not possibly have an effect on those purchasing an additional firearm,” the fact sheet states. “First-time buyers seeking a firearm for self-defense would be affected by a waiting period that limits their ability to safeguard themselves and their loved ones.”
“Research has shown…”
“Sources indicate…”
“Experts agree…”
Meaningless. All meaningless.
I’d point out things about nuance and the public but at this point, why bother?
I just wanted to let you know that when I asked you to provide sources for the stats in Colorado on prop KK I replied but for some reason it didn’t post. I saved your link to that information and I really wanted you to know that I apprectiated the reply. I’ve seen people frustrated with TTAG dropping posts. I’ve never had that happen to me until now. I kind of felt that I was immune to the censorship because some of my language always gets through. Anyway strych9 thank you for taking the time to send nytimes interactive.
“Consensus” (manufactured)
“We have to do something.”
Those have also done wonders for the “climate” movement. Who needs affordable energy anyway? People who aren’t rich? *maniacal laugh*
No, rich people need it too if they like breathing because without it society comes apart and they get massed on.
As I said in the other thread, short term gains at long term expense. People love to play that game. It’s why people do innumerable stupid things.
“Seemed like a good idea at the time” is basically the catchphrase for our species.
Generally speaking, I’m more worried about things like this:
h-t-t-p-s://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2025A/bills/2025a_003_01.pdf
Oh, look, it’s not a ban on firearms, it’s an “expansion” of “reasonable magazine size controls”. It’s also been introduced by a guy who’s openly said that an AWB wouldn’t work. Odd.
Where’d it come from? Well, it’s prewritten and handed to some Colorado Legislators by Everytown’s lawyers as a mechanism to test “novel” ways to advance gun control. It’s already got 18 co-sponsors in the Colorado Senate too, which for those who don’t know is very, very, very, very bad for gun owners in the State.
But why would anyone elsewhere care?
The interesting bit is this: If you actually look at the way the law is crafted, you’ll rapidly find that this covers a lot of pistols which is lame but is almost an aside, really. The most interesting part is that, curiously, possession of such firearms isn’t actually illegal, just a sale or transfer is illegal, with certain exceptions for inheritance and whatnot. Which has interesting similarities to the prior mag ban that no one enforces unless you rob a bank or shoot a cop, which is why it has seen few serious challenges.
Which means, when you really think about it, that one could take a trip outside Colorado, purchase a rifle or shotgun and then return with said rifle or shotgun and it’s all legal the same way it’s legal to do this with “high capacity” magazines (a law that’s nearly never enforced except as a sweetener and I can point you to a dozen stores off the top of my head that sell standard capacity mags openly just in the North Metro are of Denver).
So… WTF?
Well, this means that gun owners aren’t the real target here. FFLs are. Sure, gun owners can’t buy pistols under this, but FFLs can’t sell those pistols or semi auto rifles/shotguns. Yet, it’s not banned so it’s not illegal for an FFL somewhere else to sell a Colorado resident one of these things, something we might call a “competitive advantage”.
Now, as has been pointed out in the past, this would prohibit the sale of about 80% of what FFLs sell in Colorado and thereby put them out of business.
Oh, there’s the goal, an 80% reduction in potential sales to FFL’s statewide. Now, you might think that it’s some sort of kickback to folks with LE contracts, right? Nope, no carveout for them, they can’t sell to LE either.
And that, by the by, was quite obviously the purpose behind the previous tax hike on firearms and ammo. To make Colorado FFLs uncompetitive and put them out of business when people simply load up outside the state.
And the funny part? Because Polis has higher aspirations at the national level, he’s actually the best chance to kill this because his administration has previously come out against an AWB or anything like it.
Keep an eye out for both of these tactics at every level. Particularly that tax angle, since it’s got a lot of leeway built in what with FAET being a thing that states and localities can hide behind.
Fun aside; did you know that there’s no statutory definition of “income” for the IRS to use? That’s by design, they’ve previously argued to Congress that, if Congress would like, the current law governing the IRS means they can tax you for cooking food in your own home or even doing your own laundry and that they’d be more than happy to raise that revenue if Congress wants them to. See, saving money is making money and that’s “income” according to the IRS. They’re just nice enough to not hit you for it… yet.
Interesting times.
Oh, yes, I forgot:
As written, this would also allow the AG to make any modifications s/he wants later in case something wasn’t covered and is later deemed problematic. Sure, that KSG isn’t fed by a detachable mag, but they can just pencil it in later.
And yes, because I know that it’s likely that someone’s going to get pedantic about it, paragraphs 7 and 9 assume that the reader knows pistol and revolver sales across state lines are not legal but the paragraphs in question allude to this yet don’t explicitly say so. Now it’s been said, explicitly, like a film made in the San Fernando Valley… well, at least until recently.
it will all be tied up in courts until these same items are brought into play.
Unless the whole thing gets nuked by the SCOTUS, which actually could happen if they take one of the cases that’s up on appeal to them this year… I’m blanking on the name of that case at the moment though.
Seems to me the Supreme Court’s decisions on the second amendment doesn’t carry much weight. Pretty much like “Fck the Judge, what are they going to do throw us in jail?”
I don’t think I would say that the decisions don’t carry much weight.
They don’t carry a capacity to immediately change every law which the decision affects. There’s a process that has to be gone through to go and challenge those laws under the new SCOTUS precedent and have the laws struck down.
That requires someone to have standing and blah, blah, blah and then go through the process and deal with appeals etc etc etc.
That’s annoying but it is the process and, looking around the world and at history, it’s the best system you’re going to get even if it is obnoxiously slow at times.
It’s also gameable, which is what the Left does and will do until you either add teeth to the system, which is probably unwise, or you start running it back at them hard when you have popular support so that they get a taste of their own medicine.
Or, alternatively, you could look at the structure of society, see where they’ve taken over and eject them from those pinch points. But that’s work R’s don’t tend to want to do.
On a side note, the most important case recently (the past few months) IMHO isn’t a SCOTUS case.
Rather it’s a case out of the Northern District of Texas, Spence v. American Airlines.
We’ll have to see how things play out on potential appeal, but the judge in that case was an absolute savage in going after ESG investing as being counter to fiduciary responsibility and putting BlackRock on blast.
I’m somewhat surprised that such a decision on fiduciary duty was handed down this early in history. I’d have expected that we’d have to wait for a few years for some companies to sink before judges would understand the competing timelines since ESG could be argued both directions on the fiduciary duty front depending on your time horizon.
How about a waiting period on rope. Garden hose. How about that pesky knife in the kitchen or box cutter in the garage. Fire up the self driving car and lay down in front of it. Since the person offing him or her self won’t have to worry about the mess chain saws would do it. Am I being cruel, unusual and insensitive? How about a back ground check and waiting period before one can enter a tall building and get in the elevator. What’s her name is egregiously stupid.
I’ve never thought about firing up a car and laying in front of it. I don’t see how that would work with all the safety devices, brake pedal depressed to shift for starters.
I think I’ve came up with the ultimate. Chain yourself to the railroad tracks throw away the key and down a gallon of Kentucky Delux Whiskey. If the train don’t get you the whiskey will.
This is a stunt. It ain’t gonna fly here in Pennsylvania. We are continuing to deepen our shade of red.
Nothing is new. Democrats just make shit up.
President Biden will go down in history as a president.
president*
Speaking of which, Snopes v. Maryland, a case on Maryland’s assault weapons ban, was scheduled for conference yesterday, 1/10. We will know Monday if it took the case. There’s a good chance that cert will be granted, as this case was already up for review, with the decision reversed and remanded for reconsideration. The Court of Appeals affirmed its prior decision holding the law to be constitutional.