The Freedom of the Press is enshrined in our Constitution. Much like the 2nd Amendment, it must be respected and followed by all. I appreciate an independent press. I am thankful for an independent press. When it is truly independent, meaning that beholden to no government or special interest, the proverbial Fourth Estate provides a needed and laudable service to us all. I do not presume to tell any reporter how to do his or her job.

Last night at 9:12 PM I was asked by PennLive to provide a comment as to their article. The request was stated thusly:

Hi Mr. McShane:

I was thinking about writing a short story about the city’s lost/stolen ordinance.

The city has not written a citation for violating this ordinance in recent memory, if ever. And I wondered if you could articulate your objections to it, in light of the fact that it is not enforced.

I think I know your position on this, but wanted to give you a chance to restate it, so I could possibly include it if I write a story about how the city doesn’t enforce the ordinance. (Rather, they say it does its job by encouraging people to report lost/stolen guns.)

So in summary: I’m curious:

Were you aware that the city didn’t enforce this ordinance?

What are your thoughts/objections to the ordinance in light of the fact that its not enforced?

I truly appreciate the opportunity of fair reply. It shows integrity in the reporter. It is what good reporting should always do.

I choose to presume the best in all people. I choose to presume the best in this particular reporter. I was (and still am) very concerned that perhaps even despite my presumptions of the best in this reporter and that she wants to be fair and balanced that somewhere in the editorial process that my complete thoughts would not be published and/or selectively edited by others at PennLive. Far from a conspiracy theory, at the very least, there is the appearance of bias against the Plaintiffs and in favor of the City on the topic of this lawsuit given PennLive’s Editorial Board public position on the Harrisburg illegal ordinance lawsuit published here: A prudent way to stand up to gun lawsuit threats: Editorial. This is especially so as the Editorial was unsigned and according to their own website: “Unsigned editorial represent the consensual opinion of the Editorial Board and are conceived and debated in weekly meetings” (More on who exactly makes up the PennLive Editorial Board can be found here: Members of the PennLive Editorial Board.)

All of this caused me to respond shortly the 912 PM request for comment this way:

I give consent to print this whole statement or you may use none of it. It cannot be edited without losing all meaning. However, if in the in the interest of brevity, you may omit the portion in brackets; however, I think it is vital as well.

#####
_______________

The only reason why anyone today asks “Who does a law hurt if it is not enforced?” and/or shrugs his or her shoulders saying “No harm, no foul” is because of the narrow context that people think about this lawsuit: it’s about guns. Guns polarize.

If a City Council and a Mayor passed a law (or refused to repeal a law) that prohibited a certain race, a gender, ethnic group or sexual orientation from voting for Council…. but did not enforce it, would anyone say with a clean heart and a straight mind, there’s no harm, no foul. What about a municipality that passed an ordinance that required parents to report suspected homosexual children with 48 hours of discovery and that ordinance was passed in 1951… but they did not enforce it now, would there still be no harm, no foul? If there was a municipality that passed an ordinance that said that when CAT buses come to the City, one race has to sit in the front and another in the back… but that City did not enforce it, is there still no harm, no foul?

The Mayor and I agree on one thing: laws have powerful symbolic meanings. They are not just words on paper. They tell so very much about a community and its Ethos, Pathos, and Logos. If the government refuses to follow the law, then can the citizens be far from doing likewise?

[Who cares if Justin McShane has a problem with any of these ordinances? Our state legislature has a definite problem with what Harrisburg has been doing. So does at least one prominent Judge, Judge Brobson, who sits now on the Commonwealth Court (the Court who will hear any appeal). The legislature and Judge Brobson of the Commonwealth Court clearly believe that any municipality that passes a lost or stolen ordinance is regulating gun ownership. See NRA v. Pittsburgh. And beyond that, our Pennsylvania Supreme Court has held that all lawful and unlawful means of regulating gun ownership is absolutely illegal if done by a municipality. See Com. v. Ortiz.]

May this lawsuit and its media attention spotlight the fact that good governance is following the law and ruling from within the parameters of the law.

Tomorrow morning at 930 the attorneys meet with the Judge in chambers. We cannot build foundations of public safety without the clear rule of law by all, even the elected officials. For the sake of the rule of law, for the sake of the taxpayers, for the sake of public safety, let’s all hope and pray that with this night’s sleep the stewards of the rule of law in the City of Harrisburg wake up with a fresh mind and a renewed obligation to their oath– that they decide to consent to be ruled by the law and rescind all 5 ordinances.

Later, without my comments, the article was published under this title: Harrisburg requires gun owners to report lost or stolen guns, but is this ordinance enforced?

After it was published I was informed as follows:

I’m sorry but we don’t allow sources to place conditions on statements to us. We need to be able to use information from sources as our news judgment dictates.

It’s a longstanding journalism policy designed to maintain press freedom and independence.

Thanks anyway.

In a series of emails, I asked PennLive to add in that I did make a statement, but that per their policy that they refused to print it. I was happy that they added in as they did to reflect the whole truth. Now here in this blog, you have the full truth.

I have since talked to the reporter. It is my belief that she is in a difficult situation and carrying a difficult task. Although I believe the issue to be a simple one: Does the City follow the law: yes or no? Others seemingly think that other matters and concepts beyond the core question should control the conversation. So be it.

____

Now for the sixth time, we call upon the City to accept our offer to settle: Remove all 5 ordinances, and no attorney’s fees will be asserted by the Plaintiffs. In the alternative, the City can choose to rescind 4 of the ordinances (lost and reported and the three that were struck down in the preliminary injunction) and modify the the discharge ordinance to allow for three exceptions: (1) police may lawfully discharge a weapon in the lawful course of their duties, (2) in the case of self-defense, and (3) people who may own or possess a weapn may safely and lawfully target shoot (without the signoff of the Chief and outside of a PDE certified facility as is now the case). Finally, if you continue to wish to litigate, let’s all waive discovery, interrogatories, and depositions. Let’s skip the interlocutory appeal and move on to final judgment by the judge, then you can appeal and take your chances in the Commonwealth and Supreme Court. What do you say?