Novel law prompts towns agree to rescind gun measures
Source: Associated Press
Novel law prompts towns agree to rescind gun measures
By MICHAEL RUBINKAM, Associated Press | January 11, 2015 | Updated: January 11, 2015 12:56pm
Barely a week after taking effect, a novel state law that makes it easier for gun-rights groups to challenge local firearms measures in court is already sparking change: Nearly two dozen Pennsylvania municipalities have agreed to get rid of their potentially problematic ordinances rather than face litigation.
Joshua Prince, an attorney for four pro-gun groups and several residents, cited the new law in putting nearly 100 Pennsylvania municipalities on notice that they would face legal action unless they rescinded their firearms laws.
At least 22 of those municipalities have already repealed them, or indicated they planned to do so, according to Prince, who specializes in firearms law and is based in southeastern Pennsylvania.
Pennsylvania, which has a strong tradition of hunting and gun ownership, has long prohibited its municipalities from enforcing firearms ordinances that regulate the ownership, possession, transfer or transportation of guns or ammunition.
Read more: http://www.chron.com/news/us/article/Novel-law-prompts-towns-agree-to-rescind-gun-6008033.php
Doug.Goodall
(1,241 posts)We need to restrict the easy availability of guns to the public, not remove the common sense laws on the books.
NickB79
(19,258 posts)I can see a lot of legal issues arising if gun laws vary widely from one city to another.
And as the article says, the state has had laws on the books prohibiting cities from enacting their own gun control legislation for the past 40 years, which the cities largely ignored.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Yo_Mama
(8,303 posts)Plus this follows the general principle of preemption.
petronius
(26,603 posts)consistency is preferable to a patchwork...
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)completely overrun with Republicans, sure.
Otherwise state laws tend to be idiotic and nightmarish.
Shamash
(597 posts)We would not approve if individual towns got to punt Roe v. Wade with local laws, and DUers take notice when local jurisdictions refuse to issue same-sex marriage licenses contrary to their state's law. The same principle applies here.
Basically, you cannot adopt an exception to your principles "because my pet issue deserves it" unless you allow the least ethical members of your political opposition to do the same. There is no "permanent Democratic majority". Conservatives will occasionally run the government and you cannot say "no!" to what they do if you were doing the same damn thing when you were in charge.
calimary
(81,466 posts)Glad you're here! You make a good point. Reminds me of the cases in which one same-sex couple can be legally married in one state, but cross the state line and suddenly they're criminals. And there are some situations in which the same law should be in force - across the board. From coast-to-coast. A woman's right to choose fits with this, too.
Of course, in this case, my own personal view would be a wish to see all the gun protections reversed, or downgraded, so it becomes much harder for individuals to get access to them. And that, if it were up to me, would be across the board. Along with a re-examination and update of the 2nd Amendment. My opinion only.
onehandle
(51,122 posts)All to line the pockets of corporations
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)when towns start coming up with laws on gay marriage, LGBT issues and abortions. Statewide commonality is best.
onehandle
(51,122 posts)Say what you mean.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)please do not tell me what I think.
Demit
(11,238 posts)Hello, it's me from a previous thread. The one where you told another poster with great certainty that you knew what I thought. You seem not to like it when it happens to you.
Telcontar
(660 posts)Shemp Howard
(889 posts)An individual state has many rights. But a municipality, as a political unit, has very few rights. In most cases, a municipality has a power only because its state has granted (or allowed) that power. Taxation rates is one such example in my state. A municipality is quite limited on what it can tax, and at what rate.
As another poster has noted, that's the way it should be. Otherwise, each state would be a crazy and unworkable patchwork of mini-states, each with its own set of laws.
NickB79
(19,258 posts)Hell, the NRA wasn't even all that batshit crazy 40 years ago when this law was first made.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)when the individual municipalities were thumbing their noses at the state, except they added fines and local govt officials could be removed for violating state laws.
PumpkinAle
(1,210 posts)........ it won't be long before the NRA want every baby to be given a gun at birth.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Many here have already claimed that, despite how ridiculous that is.
onehandle
(51,122 posts)Best to ignore them.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)Those ones that kept all those handguns out of the hands of criminals?
Shamash
(597 posts)I thought the DC gun crime rate was so low because of the gun ban there. You're telling me Chicago is reaping the same benefits as DC is? Quick, someone tell NYC, the violence there is horrible! (and the criminals are pretty bad, too) We need to restrict guns there as well!
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)Both were violence-free utopias before those gun bans were ruled unconstitutional. You couldn't find a gun anywhere.
Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)Just another right taken away from communities that are seen as threatening.
It's due to these laws that police have a shoot on sight mentality when they see a person of color with a BB gun. A disastrous side effect of gun control laws. Often those same communities due to their high crime rates are the ones where citizens need to arm themselves most. Given the choice between being judged by 12 or carried by six many see no choice but to arm themselves illegally Maine themselves easy targets for police.
California only banned open carry when the panthers started using open carry at protests.
Judi Lynn
(160,621 posts)State Poised to Strike Casino Firearms Ban
AGs office says Gaming Board doesnt have the authority.
By Joel Mathis | November 13, 2014 at 5:30 am
The State of Pennsylvania appears ready to strike down its longstanding casino firearms ban.
Casinos would still be able to bar guns from their premises, under the new rule to be considered next week by the Independent Regulatory Review Commission. But the current blanket ban in effect since 2008 appears to be illegal under a 2011 state law restricting the ability of state agencies to regulate firearms.
~ snip ~
It wasnt until April 19th of this year, however, that Berks County attorney Joshua Prince, representing the Firearms Industry Consulting Group a division of his law firm challenged the Gaming Boards gun prohibition.
There exists an inalienable right to defend one's self, Prince said in his letter to the board, adding: One only needs to perform a quick Google search to find numerous occasions, even limited to Pennsylvania, of law-abiding individuals being assaulted and robbed at casinos.
~ snip ~
That makes the IRRCs vote next week something of a formality, since the change will merely bring the Gaming Control Boards rules in line with state law. Still, the news was alarming to Shira Goodman, executive director of CeaseFirePA, a gun-control group.
"Now you'll be able to carry a firearm at a place where money changes hands, people are drinking a lot, people get emotional, she said. I don't see how that makes us safer."
http://www.phillymag.com/news/2014/11/13/state-poised-strike-casino-firearms-ban/#VXfwigo8lCD37PUP.99
Shamash
(597 posts)I thought private businesses retained the right to have an enforceable "no firearms" policy, so long as it is publicly posted. The state-level ban being rescinded simply did not give the casinos the option. If a casino wants to allow guns in an emotional, money- and alcohol-rich environment where they could be conceivably be liable for the consequences...
To be fair, the self-defense point made by the firearms lawyer has some validity. You can do a quick web search for assault, rape or robbery plus Pennsylvania and casino and get plenty of hits.
I suspect which way the casinos jump will be based on lawyers and statistics. If you tell someone they have to give up a means of self-defense and they are harmed because of this, the casino has problems. If guns are allowed and a legally carried gun is used to harm someone, the casino has problems. They'll decide in the way that is best for their business, because that is what businesses tend to do.