Jun 7, 2014 3 min read

The state house this week voted 173-24 to approve the Pennsylvania long rifle as the state’s official firearm.

The bill will now move on to the state senate.

But it didn’t happen without the usual harumphs and objections from legislators who must not think too hard before opening their mouths.

Philadelphia Democrat Mark Cohen, for example, strongly objected to the designation over concerns about shootings in his hometown and the fact commercial products haven’t been given official status in the past.

Somebody might want to let Cohen know nobody in his district has likely been killed with a Pennsylvania long rifle in, oh, I don’t know, about 200 years.

It also was hardly a big commercial venture, with a small number of German gunsmiths creating the rifles after immigrating here in the early 1700s. We’re not talking about Smith & Wesson here.

But the Pennsyvlania long rifle, which is also known as the Kentucky long rifle, was a big part of early American culture.

It is characterized by an unusually long barrel, which was uncommon in European rifles of the same era. It was also one of the first rifles in which the bore of the barrel was grooved, or rifled, to allow the musket ball to travel a more stable trajectory.

They were used in the French and Indian War, American Revolution and War of 1812.

For frontiersmen, the Pennsylvania long rifles were a necessity, and they are as much a part of our past as the official state ship, the U.S. Brig Niagara, or the official state steam locomotive, of which we have two, the K4s 1361 and the K4s 3750.

The Pennsylvania long rifle played a big part in the state’s early heritage. If that doesn’t deserve some kind of honor, then nothing does, regardless of how you feel about guns.

• Officials from the Legislative Budget and Finance Committee reviewed their findings this week on a merger of the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat and Game commissions with the members of the House Game and Fisheries Committee.

The merger of the two independent commissions would save some $5 million each year, mostly in salaries.

According the the review, a merger would allow for the elimination of 52 redundant jobs within the two commissions, mostly in Harrisburg. Many of the jobs would be eliminated through retirements.

Pennsylvania is currently the only state in which its fish and boat commission is separate from its game commission.

The organizations, which are funded through licensing fees, have been split for more than 100 years, with the fish and boat commission regulating fishing and boating activities and the game commission regulating hunting and trapping.

In my eyes, a merger makes sense, as long as the organizations remain independent.

Wouldn’t it be nice to be able to purchase one all-encompassing license if you so choose that would allow you to both hunt and fish?

And while there would be some initial startup costs involved with the merger – new letterhead, logos, etc. – the long-term cost savings by eliminating redundant admistration positions would be significant.

Outdoors Editor F. Dale Lolley can be reached at dlolley@observer-reporter.com.