PA House Republican Daryl Metcalfe (12th District - Butler county), after introducing legislation to stop enforcement of any new federal guns and ammunition restrictions in Pennsylvania, is now openly enticing guns and ammunition manufacturers from other states to relocate to PA with his proposed law. There's no telling if the heads of these businesses are as ignorant as the state representative, but they shouldn't be banking on the legislation doing anything if it's passed, because its entire premise is based on a comically amateur misunderstanding of how government works. Metcalfe couldn't have been paying too much attention in the classroom when being taught the branches of government.
The bill is called the Right to Bear Arms Protection Act (House Bill 357), and according to a press release from Metcalfe's office, it would have two main provisions. One would "[p]rohibit enforcement of any new federal registration, restriction or prohibition requirement for privately owned firearms, magazines and ammunition." The other would "[r]equire 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."
Passage of my legislation will send the message that there will never be additional gun control, anywhere in Pennsylvania. 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.Now we know who put the "moron" in "oxymoron" because the term "congressional fiat" contradicts itself. If a bill is passed by two legislative chambers and signed into law by a president, it is by definition not the arbitrary unilateral imposition that calling it a "fiat" alludes to. And call them activists if you please, but the very Constitution you're attempting to thump gives the judicial branch the power to determine laws' constitutionality - not the legislative branch you're a member of. If it's fair to call it "chains of government tyranny" when constitutionally enacted laws restrict guns and ammunition sales, it must be fair to call it "chains of government tyranny" when one person in the government tries to stop all the others from properly doing their job in accordance with the Constitution to protect the people.