But rather than apologize and drop the matter the city is throwing the book at Fiorino and taking aim at other gun owners. Lt. Raymond Evers, a spokesman for the city police, reportedly told FoxNews.com “that gun owners who open carry, which is legal in the city, may be asked to lay on the ground until officers feel safe while they check permits.”

Additionally FoxNews.com noted:

“The warning comes after Mark Fiorino, a suburban Philadelphia IT worker, posted an audiotape to YouTube of his tense, 45-minute encounter with police in February over his exposed handgun. The video went viral and captured national attention.”

Our best wishes to Fiorino for standing up for his (and all of our) rights.

The story notes that gun-rights activist Mark Fiorino took a stroll around the City of Brotherly Love with a holstered firearm. The author noted:

“One city cop, who requested anonymity, said that he was unaware carrying a firearm openly within the city limits was legal.”

The story further noted that it is legal to carry openly within Philadelphia as long as you have a license, and open carry is legal throughout the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

“Well it’s going to take national leadership. You and Mike Bloomberg, the other mayors, have all been yelling and screaming about it, but somebody’s got to listen in Washington.”

So much for even a softball question! At this point Mitchell is practically a spokesperson for Nutter.

“If Florida officials hadn’t helped a Philadelphia man skirt the city’s strict handgun-permit rules, a would-be thief might have gotten a chance to mend his ways.”

Are we reading this right? The paper is actually blaming a Florida law in the death of 18-year old Irving Santana, who was shot dead by Marqus Hill, a 28-year old who bought a gun in Florida. The case is unique, in that Hill was stripped of his right to own a gun legally in Philadelphia after a confirmation with officers. However, even the paper notes “Hill wasn’t convicted of a crime.”

He further passed a background check, provided fingerprints and proof of firearms training. And he was given a permit per Florida law, which will grant out of state residents a permit.

What amazes us is that the paper didn’t care much about Hill’s civil liberties. If he wasn’t convicted of a crime, why was unable to get a permit. The paper of course doesn’t note this fact. It also only mentions in passing that Santana was breaking into cars, which is when he was shot by Hill.

The editorial ignores any other facts of the break in, and while it is a tragedy, we do have to wonder whether Santana would have mended his ways. Even suggesting it in the lead is insulting, just as much as saying, “a would-be thief now will never get to be a career criminal and kill a truly innocent person.”

Yes, two wrongs don’t make a right. But this was a case where there were truly no innocent victims.

The Philadelphia Weekly offered this cheat sheet on the law:

• The city is allowed to force its citizens to report a lost or stolen gun within 24 hours.
• Police are allowed to seize guns from those “considered to pose a risk to themselves or others.”
• Those subject to a protection-from-abuse order may not own a firearm within the city.
• Want an assault weapon? You’re good.
• Need to purchase more than one gun a month? No problem. Have as many as you want!

Notice that there is no cynical humor for the parts the writer’s seem to agree with “Police are allowed to seize guns,” but with other parts of the bill there is clearly a mocking tone? Was this really necessary?

The problem with this editorial is that it offers quotes that support the argument, while offering no counter-point. Yes, it is an editorial and doesn’t need the counterpoint, but it just shows that Goldsmith doesn’t have a strong enough argument to make his case. Worse still is the fact that he notes Philadelphia is safer, yet still calls for “reform of gun laws.”

If the city is already safe, and he says gun control is working, then why reform the gun laws – something that to us would only effect law-abiding gun owners, and clearly not criminals? What is the point? Could it be that this isn’t so much about crime, but rather that CeaseFirePA would like to see a gun-free zone that is much larger than merely the city of brotherly love?

The story covers the main points without too much bias:

“Pennsylvania’s firearms reciprocity agreements require the state to recognize permits from 24 other states that have permit laws as strict or stricter than its own and that those states, in turn, recognize Pennsylvania weapons permits.

“Among the states covered, there are three – Florida, Utah and New Hampshire – that allow out-of-state residents to get permits even if they don’t qualify or apply for permits in their home state.”

But the unbiased reporting ends there. Note these passages:

 ”District Attorney Seth Williams said that the loophole defeats local efforts to keep streets safe.”

 ”Florida looks only at convictions, not arrest history or one’s character and reputation, as the Philadelphia police do.” 

OK, we have a problem with these two statements. How would this “loophole” increase crime, as in not keeping the streets safe? People still have to apply for the permits, as the second passage notes. Florida looks for convictions. And what exactly does “arrest history” mean? Couldn’t someone have been arrested, and found not guilty? If you didn’t do the crime (and were found not guilty) should you lose your rights to own a gun?

And what does character and reputation mean? So in Philadelphia – the city of Brotherly Love – if the police don’t like your “character” you can be denied a gun permit, even if you are law abiding and have no other reason to be denied?

So we have now a problem with the reporting and the gun laws in Philly!

It will be interesting to see whether this program, which will give $200 for each firearm, will actually reduce crime. As we’ve questioned all year, do gun buybacks actually get guns out of criminal’s hands and off the street? Or does it just get poor people to turn over potentially value items? You be the judge.

So the question is why is Young getting a slap on the wrist. Yes, he did have a permit for the weapon, but he broke the law. Meanwhile many individuals are having a harder and harder time obtaining a permit in Philadelphia. This just isn’t justice.