Tuesday, January 13, 2015

The future body shape of Pennsylvania perps?

We who are, or strive to be, proficient in the safe and effective use of firearms, know that training must be regular and realistic; shooting as often as possible, practicing drawing from on-body carry, dry-fire drills, etc...

Apparently, for a Pennsylvania State Representative [Democrat of course], the private citizen should only need to defend oneself against white-tailed deer, black bear, wild turkey, and elk......or presumably, a bull's-eye shaped assailant. Because being prepared to defend oneself, family or home against a human perpetrator [when was the last time a wild turkey assaulted you?]....it "perpetuate violence". I don't see why he pursues these half measures......why doesn't he simply outlaw violent crime?



Posted: January 8, 2015 04:11 PM
From:  Representative Thaddeus Kirkland  
To: All House members 
Subject: Shooting Range Legislation

 In the near future, I will introduce legislation amending Title 18 of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, which will address the use of human silhouette targets at shooting ranges.

 Rather than perpetuate violence by continuing to allow individuals to practice their target shooting by shooting at human silhouette targets at shooting ranges, my legislation will prohibit the use of targets that depict human silhouettes at shooting ranges across the Commonwealth. Instead, silhouette targets could include, but are not limited to the following: white-tailed deer, black bear, wild turkey, and elk.

 My legislation creates a new section under Title 18 Chapter 61 regarding firearms and other dangerous articles. Specifically, the bill prohibits the use of human silhouette targets at shooting ranges across the Commonwealth except by law enforcement officers, military personnel or other public safety personnel in line with their official duties. If a person violates the provisions of the new section, he or she will commit a summary offense.


  1. Are you sure you didn't get this from The Onion?

    The sad part is, there are plenty of soft-heads in and out of government who go along with stuff like this. Do they really believe it will do any good? Or do they do this just to make themselves feel better.

    Someone should write to him and ask him for statistics to back up his legislation.

    How many people shoot at silhouette targets? Now, of that population, how many go on to shoot a real person? If he can't answer it, he should be recalled for wasting taxpayer time and money.

    Sounds like a typical de-balled progressive male to me.

  2. It's silly idea. May as well ban most video games too. Just silly. I'm not a fan of Kirkland. He's all for the show, no substance.


  3. Thankfully, under our Constitution, politicians are prevented from forcing their ignorant personal decisions upon citizens in this matter.

    1. Huh? There's no shortage of bills proffered, and bills passed...that are undisguised ignorant personal agendas. The Constitution does nominally stop this behavior.......but our elected representatives willfully fail to abide by it.

    2. CI: My statement was poorly worded. It should mean that the Constitution SHOULD prevent politicians from destroying our rights like this.

  4. Would the constitution prevent this? I don't think it would. By your logic, a lot of stuff you don't like would be legal, ya' know.


    1. Not surprised you say that, Jersey. You have a view of the Constitution protecting the rights of the people against the predations of the State that is rather different, and restricted, compared what is actually protected in the document.


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.