DN editorial: Two bad bills in Legislature better off being left to die

WE HAVE some timely advice for the Pennsylvania Legislature, which is session in Harrisburg this week.

Go home.

The election is only a few weeks away. Your constituents have many pressing issues that must be dealt with.

If you stay in session, all that will happen is that you will keep passing bills whose main purpose is to pander to special-interest groups. If those bills pass the House and the Senate, they will then move on to the desk of Gov. Wolf, who will most likely veto them.

One is a bill backed by the National Rifle Association, which periodically demands that lawmakers kiss its feet to prove their fealty. The bill would allow anyone - even someone from out of state - to make a legal challenge to local gun laws.

In 2014, the Legislature passed a similar measure, but it was blocked by the courts because of a technicality - in its haste to pass it, the Legislature tacked it on to another bill that had nothing to do with the topic of gun laws. And you cannot pass a bill that deals with multiple unrelated topics.

The NRA wants this bill to become law because it does not like the fact that local governments, including Philadelphia, have enacted gun laws tougher than the NRA would like to see.

Usually, legal action must be taken by an aggrieved party who will be directly affected by a law. It is called standing. This bill would overturn that principle for one kind of case - gun laws. The bill also would require the local municipality to bear the entire cost of the case if it loses in court. That provision alone got some local governments across the state to drop their local gun laws the last time it passed. Philadelphia has said it will not.

Another bad bill: one sponsored by Rep. Martina White, a Republican representing a district in Northeast Philly, that would forbid the release of the name of any police officer involved in a shooting that results in death or serious injury. The gag order would last 30 days, or until criminal charges are brought against an officer, and anyone who violated it could be charged with a criminal offense.

Keeping this information secret might please the Fraternal Order of Police, which supports White's bill, but it is not in the public interest.

Given the events of the last few years, with so many high-profile cases of police shootings, this bill is an affront to all those concerned about the erosion of civil rights. Police are sanctioned to use violence and take a life when they deem necessary, but that power cannot prevail without transparency and accountability. By hiding the names of those police involved, this bill would further muddy uneasy relations between law enforcement and many communities.

Lawmakers who backed the bill did so on the dubious premise that police officers and their families are in danger the moment their identities become known after a questionable shooting. No one offered evidence, however, that officers in such situations are commonly subjected to threats and harassment or worse.

Pennsylvanians don't want to live in a society where police action, on behalf of the public, is beyond scrutiny. Let's hope the Senate takes a more sober view of the measure and derails it. If not, it will be up to Wolf to use his veto.