Posted on 09/10/2001 8:54:51 AM PDT by real saxophonist
Don't enact federal law to solve local issues
By Peter G. Chronis
Denver Post staff writer
Tuesday, September 04, 2001 -
Coloradans used to love bashing Texans who thronged here in summer or during hunting season, often in motor homes that should have been registered as aircraft carriers.
That's passe now that we can blame Californians for every ill from overbuilding to halitosis.
I think the Left Coasters deserve a time out, so I will bash the place of my birth, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, for indirectly giving me and some other Coloradans the vapors. Any Californian who wishes may now retire to the veranda for a mai tai and cookies while I drub some lawless Keystone Staters, who are probably unaware of how they nearly brought an end to hunting by commoners in the Rockies.
Allow me to explain. Last month, at a gun show, a representative of the Firearms Coalition of Colorado handed me a flier that screamed: BILL COULD BAN HUNTING!
It got my attention. H.R. 731, sponsored by Rep. Robert Andrews, D-N.J., would have made it illegal for anybody to discharge a firearm within 1,000 feet of any building or land owned or leased by the federal government.
Considering that 24.2 million acres of Colorado's 66.4 million acres is owned by the feds, that would end hunting in national forests or on Bureau of Land Management holdings. Ordinary mortals who can't afford to pay to hunt on private land have no place else to hunt except public land.
I also wondered how the bill might affect a shop owner or home owner who lives within 1,000 feet of, say, a post office. Would shooting at an intruder in self-defense bring federal charges?
I called Andrews' office in Haddon Heights, N.J., and talked with him. Another western newshound - from Arizona - had already bent his ear.
Andrews admitted that the original wording of the bill was unsatisfactory. It was never his intent to end hunting on federal land or to preclude lawful use of a firearm near federal property, he said.
The bill's purpose stems from neighboring Philadelphia's tradition of "firing off firearms to celebrate New Year's Eve or sports victories," said Andrews, whose New Jersey district lies just across the Delaware River. The irresponsible behavior has spilled over to the Jersey side. "There have been some injuries (and a fatality) because of random celebratory gunfire. The idea is to curtail that sort of thing," Andrews said.
Despite vigorous efforts by Philadelphia authorities, the gunfire persists.
This brought memories of my childhood in Pittsburgh, when our neighbors across Pioneer Avenue welcomed the New Year with illegal fireworks. We always enjoyed the show, making our own noise by banging on pots and pans. I don't know if Pittsburghers just naturally have more common sense than Philadelphians or not, but our neighbors didn't fire guns into the air.
Perhaps Philadelphians have seen more Hollywood Westerns and mistakenly believe that a bullet fired into the air miraculously flutters to earth. Wrong: On the way down, such a bullet regains enough punch to kill.
Andrews' concern is understandable - who wants to begin the New Year as the star attraction at a wake?
Andrews said the bill is being reworked and faxed a copy that has exceptions for the lawful discharge of guns by law enforcement officers, officers and employees of the federal government, at shooting ranges permited by state law, and hunters on federal land.
His bill in no way "curtails any legal activity," including hunting, sports shooting, and legal self-defense, Andrews said.
That's a relief - but it would be more reassuring if the wording were a little more explicit.
Better still would be no federal bill at all. This is a problem that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the state of New Jersey need to address, either with even stricter enforcement of existing law or by enacting new laws to correct the problem. Lest anyone think this phenomenon is peculiar to Philadelphia, I hasten to note that shooting guns into the air also has occurred locally, on the West Coast and in the Old South.
That doesn't make it a national problem that's solvable only by federal legislation. Too often in recent years, we've tended to federalize crimes that normally are within the purview of the states. Two centuries ago, the framers of the Constitution rejected a national legal system like the Code Napoleon precisely because they feared placing too much power in the hands of the federal government.
It's worked pretty well, and I see no reason to change despite Rep. Andrews' good intentions.
Yo, California! Now that you've had your mai tai and cookies, could you step into my office?
Peter G. Chronis (pchronis@denverpost.com) is a member of The Denver Post editorial board.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.