Shortly before 5 p.m. on Friday, a man opened fire with a handgun inside a home in Erie, Pennsylvania. At least seven people died, including children. The shooter died too. By the time the scene was cleared, the case had already become a political fight, and the fight is going to be about the gun. Some of that is predictable. Some of it will matter to every licensed carrier in the state.
What we know, and what keeps changing
The early count was at least seven dead, and DownRange's coverage of the shooting reflects that. A separate account from Bearing Arms describes a 45-year-old Erie man who shot and killed eight family members, two of them children and one an unborn child, plus a friend of one of the victims, before killing himself. Those numbers don't line up, and I'm not going to pretend they do. Mass shooting tolls move as investigators work through a house, and anyone who tells you the number is final three days in is guessing. Read our original report on the Erie shooting for the early timeline and the Bearing Arms account of the aftermath for the political reaction, and hold both loosely until official numbers come out.
What is not in dispute: a man with a handgun, inside a home, with family members around him. That fact pattern is the one people will argue over, and it's the one that will be used to justify almost any policy you can name.
What it means for Pennsylvania gun owners
Expect the push in Pennsylvania to target the handgun itself, specifically how it was acquired, stored, and who had access to it. The pastor calling for gun control has already put the debate on that track. The standard menu will come back out: universal background checks, waiting periods, red flag orders, and mandatory storage rules. Some of those already exist in one form or another in Pennsylvania, and some are going to get proposed as if they don't.
Pennsylvania's existing framework for handgun purchases runs through the sheriff's office and the license-to-purchase process, and the state has a license-to-carry system for concealed carry. Before you accept any argument that the state is doing nothing, check the current Pennsylvania law page and see what's already on the books. The people pushing new rules will not volunteer that information, and when you're in a legislative hearing or talking to a reporter, your credibility depends on knowing it cold.
My position is simple. The question should be whether a specific law would have stopped this specific man, given what was known about him and how he got the gun. If the answer is no, the law is a press release, not a policy. Make the people proposing rules answer that question out loud.
What it means for Minnesota, and why the same week matters
Minnesota is in the story for a different reason this week. Federal agents arrested Sheikhdoon Abdullahi Mohamud Tuesday after he allegedly planned an ISIS-inspired mass shooting at the Mall of America. The arrest came as part of an active investigation, and the details are still developing, so I'm not going to speculate about what he intended beyond what's been reported. Our coverage of the arrest lays out what's confirmed.
Here's why it belongs in a piece about Erie. Two very different attacks, two states, one week, and both will get pulled into the same argument by people who want a single answer. The Erie shooting will be used to push firearm restrictions. The Minnesota plot will be used to push surveillance and immigration arguments. Neither one is a clean fit for the other, and gun owners in Minnesota should be ready to point that out. A foiled terror plot is a law enforcement success. It is not a reason to restrict lawful owners.
Minnesota gun