• themeatbridge
    link
    1719 hours ago

    Not really. Kyle travelled from Illinois to Wisconsin with his rifle in order to kill two people. He did not travel through Pennsylvania, so this law wouldn’t have applied to him.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          518 hours ago

          The key context is that this type of law in Wisconsin would have made it illegal for Kyle to not only purchase a firearm, but illegal to own/brandish/carry one.

          Would it have stopped someone from illegally buying Kyle one or Kyle using it? No. But then he wouldn’t have gotten away with murder.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            -4
            edit-2
            18 hours ago

            Ok? You could play that game for any law with any crime.

            If Wisconsin had a law making it illegal to cross state lines then he would have been stopped too.

            You’re just saying “what if”. This has nothing to do with the Pennsylvania law.

    • @RapidcreekOP
      link
      619 hours ago

      If other states adopt the law now that SCOTUS has blessed it, of course it will be useful.

      • @SupraMario
        link
        -215 hours ago

        No…no it won’t. The fuck is with you people thinking criminals will magically follow the laws…you know the large inner cities have a problem with giggle switches on glocks being carried by literal kids right? Chicago tried to sue glock because of it.

        Criminals don’t magically stop doing something because you made it illegal.

        You fix the problem at the source, and focus on the why it’s happening, not with what was used.