Jill Porter: Whose side is O'Brien on anyway?
THE LEGISLATURE'S defeat of a common-sense gun restriction this week raised an obvious question: Just who does House Speaker Dennis O'Brien work for?
THE LEGISLATURE'S defeat of a common-sense gun restriction this week raised an obvious question:
Just who does House Speaker Dennis O'Brien work for?
O'Brien was the only legislator from Philadelphia to vote against the measure requiring handgun owners to report a lost or stolen weapon to police.
O'Brien, a Republican, was quoted as saying he couldn't support a "flawed bill" that could have "unintended consequences," such as criminal charges against the victims of handgun theft if they failed to report the weapon missing.
"It's a difficult vote to explain why you're not for it, but the deficiencies were glaring," he told the Inquirer.
I'll say it's difficult to explain.
Because the Philadelphia police support the proposed measure. The city's political leadership supports it.
And, most importantly, the constituents of O'Brien's 169th Legislative District in the city's Northeast support it.
Overwhelmingly.
A poll of his district, part of a statewide survey conducted in 2006 for city government and for Philadelphia Safe and Sound, showed that 99 percent of respondents favored mandatory reporting of missing handguns.
So just who is Speaker O'Brien representing in Harrisburg? The other 1 percent?
"He thinks the NRA are his constituents and not the people of the Northeast, who are clamoring for some change," said Ray Jones, co-founder of Men United for a Better Philadelphia.
The NRA put up a fierce battle against the measure, as it does any gun restrictions, no matter how reasonable. The bill was defeated in the state House Tuesday by a vote of 128 to 75.
I called O'Brien yesterday so that he could explain the proposal's "glaring deficiencies" to me.
He didn't call back.
No matter. His vote is unjustifiable.
How can the hardship of reporting a lost or stolen handgun trump the heartache that gun violence inflicts on human life?
NRA propaganda claims that the measure would penalize law-abiding gun owners rather than criminals.
But all handgun owners have to do is alert the authorities when they discover a weapon is missing. How arduous is that?
The reporting requirement is meant to inhibit straw purchasers who buy guns and resell them to felons. If a gun that's used in a crime is traced to them, they now claim it was lost or stolen.
The prospect of facing criminal charges for not reporting the weapon missing might make them think twice about trafficking in handguns.
This week's vote was a technical defeat for anti-gun-violence activists - but not in the long run. Advocates have been trying for years to force a vote in the Legislature on gun restrictions.
"Our goal was to get the vote; we did not anticipate winning it," said Phil Goldsmith, of CeaseFire PA. "Now we know who's for and who's against so we can be more specific in targeting our activities."
The issue, Goldsmith said, "is not going away."
Hardly.
Even City Council is emboldened to take on Harrisburg, with new legislation that clearly violates state prohibitions against local gun laws - but will force a court showdown.
The proposed laws, which include a mandatory reporting measure, were passed by a Council committee and are scheduled for a vote next week.
I think of Council's action as laudable civic disobedience, the governmental version of civil disobedience.
Council clearly represents the interests of the city.
You can't say the same for Dennis O'Brien.
"It's terribly disappointing to see that Speaker O'Brien voted against it, and then couldn't really explain why," Goldsmith said of O'Brien's vote on the mandatory reporting measure.
"At some point, you've got to represent your constituents." *
E-mail porterj@phillynews.com or call 215-854-5850. For recent columns: