APNewsBreak: NRA Suing Pennsylvania Cities Over Gun Laws

[hue]

Source: abc NEWS



Armed with a new state law, pro-gun groups are rapidly scaling up their attack on municipal firearms ordinances in Pennsylvania, with the National Rifle Association filing suit over gun-control measures in three cities.

The cities of Philadelphia, Pittsburgh and Lancaster have "openly defied" a 40-year-old state law that forbids municipalities from regulating firearms, said Chris Cox, executive director of the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action.

The lawsuit against Lancaster was filed late Tuesday and was released by the NRA on Wednesday. The group also filed legal paperwork in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh courts and was awaiting confirmation those lawsuits had been accepted.

Another group, Houston-based U.S. Law Shield, sued the capital city of Harrisburg on Tuesday over its gun laws.

Pennsylvania has long barred its municipalities from approving ordinances that regulate the ownership, possession, transfer or transportation of guns or ammunition. But scores of cities and towns ignored the prohibition, and gun-rights groups complained the local measures were difficult to challenge successfully in court because judges have ruled that plaintiffs could not prove they were harmed by them.

Under a state law that took effect last week, gun owners no longer have to show they have been hurt by a local ordinance to successfully challenge it. The new law also allows organizations like the National Rifle Association to sue on behalf of any Pennsylvania member. If successful, the challenger can also seek legal fees and other costs.

Read more: http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/apnewsbreak-nra-suing-pennsylvania-cities-gun-laws-28220354

[isobar]

1. Fuck the NRA.

[samsingh]

25. evil and stupid organization that preys on fear for money

[isobar]

26. All to sell gunz.

[randys1]

28. Once every citizen has 245 guns, and the owners and stockholders of the gun and ammo

mfgs have at least 10 billion each in their bank account, this might stop.

Not until then...

Or, if you want to stop this just get SC justices who can read.

[Shamash]

46. Literacy...

Or, if you want to stop this just get SC justices who can read.

“The Supreme Court did hold that there is in the Second Amendment an individual right to bear arms. And that is its holding and that is the court's decision. I fully accept that.” - Sonia Sotomayor(2009)

“There is no question, after Heller, that the Second Amendment guarantees individuals the right to keep and bear arms and that this right, like others in the Constitution, provides strong although not unlimited protection against governmental regulation.” - Elena Kagan(2010)

bonus quote!!
“I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms.” - some constitutional law professor you've never heard of...(Barack Obama, 2008)

[Shamash]

2. Didn't we just do this, twice?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014986159

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172158652

[Duckhunter935]

20. Yep

I think it's against LBN SOP also.

[Demit]

3. "In the small city of Lancaster, the NRA is challenging an ordinance that

requires residents to tell police if a gun they own is lost or stolen. Such ordinances are common in cities throughout Pennsylvania."

Oh my goodness, such an onerous law! What "rights" does this violate? "Gun-rights" groups are truly beyond all reason.

[branford]

6. If the law is as good as you believe,

it should have no trouble passing in the PA state legislature.

However, like a great many states, PA state law preempts local ordinances. This matter has nothing to do with the Second Amendment or whether the law is "good" or common elsewhere.

For example, imagine if PA towns and cities passed laws limiting abortion that contradicted more permissive state law. I doubt many here would championing the rights of the localities.

[Demit]

8. What "rights" does it violate?

My question goes to the logic at the heart of this. What rights does this ordinance violate? How are gun rights groups harmed? What's the logic? This is a real question.

[branford]

10. The issue is about state preemption of local ordinances.

It's really a rather dry and uncontroversial topic that is only getting noticed because, in this instance, it involves firearms.

A locality could unanimously pass the "best" law ever, but if it violates state law and/or if the locality did not have the authority to pass the law, it is invalid.

The issue is also hardly new. Philadelphia in particular is notorious for passing and enforcing its own firearms regime in blatant contradiction to PA state law. The taxpayers of the city have routinely had to pay out civil settlements when challenged by those affected these laws.

As I said earlier, if the laws are as good as you or other believe, and otherwise constitutional, lobby the PA state legislature.

[Demit]

12. Thank you for explaining what you want my comment to be about.

You actually did that with your first response. I'm not slow, so I grasp that issue.

But I was asking for the logic that is the basis for gun rights groups objections to the ordinance in the first place. What are the actual GUN RIGHTS the ordinance violates?

The reason I am asking this question is because I don't know the answer and I thought someone here might.

[Plucketeer]

14. I agree with you

If this particular instance (this law) is just an unnecessary thing (superfluous, if you will)..... WHY is it the concern of the NRA? Why would the NRA spend money to rescind it?

[branford]

17. Many lost or stolen firearm reporting laws are constitutional,

although I haven't examined these particular laws in detail. The plaintiffs are challenging far more than just reporting laws.

However, it doesn't matter if the laws are constitutional if the localities had no authority to pass them or if then contravene state law. As I indicated, some municipalities have already had to pay-out taxpayer money to settle claims when the these laws were enforced.

[Demit]

22. So you can't even speculate why gun rights groups would object?

I mean, I get that you think my question is irrelevant, and that's why you keep answering me with the local law/state law nexus. I quite understand that part, and I am not arguing it.

Lancaster is being sued for the rather innocuous-sounding ordinance that residents have to report when a gun is lost or stolen. NRA is the plaintiff in that suit, and that's what it is challenging, and that's what my narrow question is about: What is the objection to reporting when a gun is lost or stolen?

It's a pretty simple question. Presumably you are a gun rights advocate. Can you answer it?

[branford]

37. It doesn't matter why any group or individual would object to the law.

Neither you nor I need agree with the rationale to file a lawsuit. They have a legal right to object to the ordinance. If the lawsuit was without merit, the plaintiffs could face sanction. This is obviously not the case here.

Nevertheless, I surmise that the lawsuits are being filed first and foremost to send a message that localities cannot impose their own firearm regimes in contravention of PA state law, and secondarily, particularly with groups, like the NRA, the challenge is based on a slippery slope view of firearm regulation that mandates challenge to most statutes. These localities are fully aware that their ordinances are unlawful, and most, including Lancaster, have now indicated that they will repeal the statutes rather than face a near certain loss in court. A unlawful ordinance should not stand simply because some may not find it objectionable.

Again, I've not examined the particular law in Lancaster, but innocuous sounding laws sometimes have provisions that are objectionable. The various lawsuits also challenge ordinances well beyond missing gun reporting, such as absolute prohibitions on discharging a firearm within a jurisdiction that would contravene state self-defense statutes.

If the local statutes are unobjectionable, innocuous and otherwise constitutional, the localities should lobby the state legislature. They should not, however, be able to ignore state law. This is true whether the matter is firearms, abortion, or anything else.

To the extent it matters, I'm not really a firearm proponent or opponent. I would definitely be considered a moderate on the issue of owning and use of firearms. For instance, I support universal background checks, oppose most open carry statutes and do not opposing licensing and training requirements so long as they are "shall issue."

I've also never owned a firearm, and feel perfectly safe in NYC without one. However, I'm a trial attorney who believes in an expansive interpretation of the Constitution, the same such type interpretation that guarantees abortion rights despite the fact that it's not mentioned in the text. I do not make some hypocritical exception for the Second Amendment. Further, much of the proposed gun control legislation is little more than feel good laws and amount to a culture war rather than effective policy. I additionally acknowledge that firearms are a part of the cultural history and tradition of much of the country, despite the fact that I was not raised and do not live in these areas.

[Demit]

44. I didn't ask you to submit a legal brief.

Or your CV, for that matter. We're not litigating here, and I'm not hiring.

You have a stupendous inability to understand what was a simple--human, not legal--question. The closest I can see to an answer in this lengthy disquisition is the slippery slope argument--OMG, narrow ordinance A will automatically inevitably lead to sweeping Law Z!!!--which is a widely-recognized fallacy.

The NRA isn't nobly defending any principle other their own knee jerk hatred of any regulation of guns, and you know it. They've seized on it as a rationale. Now that the PA legislature has helpfully passed a new law that anyone can sue even if they can't show harm, the NRA can step in and go after any regulation of guns. And it has much deeper pockets than the little city of Lancaster PA.

[branford]

47. If these local statutes were lawful,

the majorities of municipalities would defend them, and money would pour in from gun control groups to do so.

You're trying to frame the issue as you perceive it. That's fine, but it's not the issue actually being litigated, and no one has to accept your personal characterizations of what's occurring in PA.

You complain about the NRA's "knee jerk hatred of any regulation of guns," but implicitly express your own "knee jerk hatred of guns." Your just the other side of the same coin. Your dismissal of the "slippery slope" rationale is also disingenuous as you clearly support significantly greater firearms restrictions and care little about their ultimate legality. The NRA arguments are no different that the type made by groups like Planned Parenthood when they oppose medical safety ordinances in their clinics. These laws are also entirely inoffensive and often quite popular, but PP is fully cognizant that in the controversial legal and political realm, once you give an inch, your opponents will try to take a mile.

You've not really even attempted to defend the legality of the local ordinances, just lamented that there will soon be fewer (unlawful) firearm restrictions in PA. I would suggest that your true gripe is with democracy in Pennsylvania. If most of these laws are constitutional and "inoffensive," as you suggest, you and others simply need to convince the PA legislature and governor to change the state laws.

[Ruby the Liberal]

53. I have family in Lancaster - and it is more than reporting requirements

They are also challenging the fact that the town doesn't allow random firing of weapons (like target shooting) in the city limits.

I side with the city working to keep their residents safe. That area of PA is replete with gaming clubs with short, medium and long range firing ranges. No one needs to be firing weapons in a small city where what few "backyards" there even are are about the size of a driveway.

[branford]

58. Could you kindly describe the other challenged Lancaster law more clearly?

Specifically, I'm uncertain about the prohibition on "random firing of weapons." I believe it's already illegal under state law to arbitrarily discharge a weapon in public under most circumstances.

My quick review of the articles about the lawsuits (I've not read any of the actual complaints) refers to a number of ordinances the ban any firing of weapons within the jurisdiction. Is that what type of law at play in Lancaster? If so, such laws would be particularly problematic because they would criminalize the use of firearm in self-defense and potentially regulate other conduct otherwise permissible under state law on private property.

In any event, if the laws at issue are in fact truly necessary, the city should lobby the state legislature to pass a law or permit an exemption to the preemption. The city is not entitled to simply ignore state law.

[Ruby the Liberal]

59. I understand that.

I was sent a link over the weekend with a media interview with the mayor, and in it he talked about those 2 elements - reporting lost/stolen and firing a weapon in the city limits.

Didn't keep the link, and just checked the local paper www.lancasteronline.com and they don't make reference to it. Maybe I misunderstood? Will try to get the link resent so I can listen again.

[Ruby the Liberal]

60. Found the reference

This was from last fall, but what the mayor said on the video last weekend. He was referring to the lawsuit they knew was coming and referenced the 2 ordinances that were at challenge. It is possible the 'illegal firing' ended up not being in the final complaint.

Thought I was losing my mind for a minute there.

ETA - the video reference was target shooting, not NYE as written last year.

Lancaster has two ordinances that are subject to the law. One relates to the unlawful discharge of firearms, such as firing a gun into the air on New Year’s Eve. The other requires the reporting of lost or stolen firearms.

http://lancasteronline.com/news/local/gray-praised-for-gun-law-challenge/article_730199e0-6a20-11e4-8b4e-a735d8e02cc6.html

[branford]

63. Thanks for the response and link.

It's still unclear what the local law actually prohibits, and whether it's even the subject of the current lawsuit. I would love to read the actual complaints, but have been unable to find any of them online.

Firing guns randomly in the air celebration or otherwise is usually already illegal under most state laws as it is very dangerous (the bullets have to come back down!), although I haven't personally reviewed all of PA's relevant statutes. I wouldn't be at all surprised if many of the challenged local laws are very similar to current state laws, just with some additional burdens or harsher penalties, and are employed by the localities as leverage to dissuade otherwise lawful ownership or carrying of firearms.

[Ruby the Liberal]

67. Not entirely sure.

I don't think they thought it would be national news - I get all kinds of strange links. There must have been language in the legislation that allowed suits that opened the door, but I can't even imagine what. Admittedly, the NRA is in my "just dry up and blow away" category because of their stances on gun regulation, so I don't follow them and their actions/stances, but even I can't imagine why they would fight (or legislation would potentially open the door to a challenge) on firing weapons randomly in a city limits.

Now you have me curious as to what in the law gave rise to the concerns. My OCD thanks you.

[branford]

68. Laws against patently dangerous firearm usage are not usually opposed

by the NRA and other gun rights organizations unless other larger interests are at play. Ironically, no matter ones feelings about the NRA's political positions, they are still the largest firearms safety organization in the USA, and the gold standard in firearm training and safe usage.

The primary issue in PA, however, is state preemption of any local firearm laws, and is better characterized as a cultural battle between the majority of rural and suburban PA areas versus urban centers like Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. In PA, as in many other states, only state law allows regulation of firearms. Urban localities have openly flaunted this prohibition for years, and have often engaged in their own legal battles and forced to pay significant legal settlements.

Since state preemption generally favors gun rights, the NRA and other groups and individuals attempt to enforce such state laws whenever possible in order to dissuade localities from passing stricter gun regulations, the majority of which are far more controversial than prohibitions on firing guns in the air. Note also that even well-intentioned and benign sounding laws often have very contentious provisions and penalties.

I assume that the NRA is simply seeking blanket repeals of all local gun ordinances, without making any distinctions among the various local laws, as that would actually weaken their legal arguments statewide.

[Lurks Often]

18. If you decide to travel from one end to the other in PA with a firearm

how do you keep track of which town you are legal in and which one you aren't legal in?

A different example would be the towns passing laws against abortion or same sex marriage despite state laws permitting it.

[Demit]

23. Lancaster's ordinance affects only its residents, not travelers.

[Lurks Often]

35. You are correct about Lancaster,

but are you sure the other towns haven't passed other laws that will affect travelers?

No one should have to guess whether or not the law changes from town to town when criminal charges can be filed against them.

[Demit]

36. Local municipalities have other ordinances that differ from town to town.

It's possible to violate one of them traveling through, I suppose. Would that be your defense, in asking to be excused from paying your fine, pleading ignorance?

Ordinances are civil matters, not criminal. If a Lancaster resident didn't report a stolen gun, they wouldn't be criminally charged.

Look, my question is about ONE SUIT here, the suit that the NRA is bringing against the city of Lancaster. It is a VERY SPECIFIC ordinance they are suing about. If you can explain to me what's so egregious, so harmful, about the requirement to report a gun lost or stolen, I'd be very grateful to hear it. Because I've asked it several times and no one seems to know.

[Lurks Often]

38. There is a big difference between a town ordinance and a criminal charge

Personally I don't see a problem with the requirement to report a gun lost or stolen, but allowing towns to pick and choose when to obey state law sets a bad legal precedent, especially when state law preempts the town ordinance.

[Demit]

41. Yes, there is.

And thank you for answering my question.

But here's a twist on your thought experiment: What if a town passes an ordinance that is more liberal than a state law? Say, for example, a state passed a law requiring everyone to carry identity papers at all times, that any policeman could arrest you if you didn't show them, and a town chose not to obey that law. Would that be a bad precedent?

States have had bad laws in our history. Jim Crow laws, for example. We progress as a society when we challenge bad laws, when we acknowledge that they have no good reason for being. We also progress by retaining good laws--food safety laws, for example--because they benefit us. When they have a good reason for being.

[Lurks Often]

42. State vs Town disputes get settled in court

and it doesn't look like the towns are going to win in court

[branford]

43. Your hypothetical is reality.

For instance, many sheriffs and local police officials have refused to enforce the new stricter state firearm regulations passed in Colorado, New York and elsewhere. These officials believe these are "bad" laws in opposition to our Second Amendment and other guaranteed rights, and are supported by majorities of their local constituents and large numbers of other citizens in their states. Do you also support these particular local officials? Do they too represent "progress?"

The issues in the Pennsylvania cases are both more complex and banal that you portray. The recent PA does not strengthen or weaken any firearm regulations in the state. Rather, it permits easier challenges under a PA law that has existed for decades, and has been openly flouted by many cities and town, often to the detriment of their taxpayers when they've lost numerous civil suits when enforced. State preemption of firearm laws is also commonplace in the USA.

State preemption laws generally are not particularly legally or politically controversial, and exist in areas besides firearms such as the environmental regulations. Moreover, under federalism, states and the federal government have recognized rights and interests, towns and cities do not. Localities in states have only the power and authority granted to them by the relevant state constitutions or statutes.

Further, I find the sudden concern about state preemption from fellow liberals just as hypocritical as Republicans professed new appreciation for more centralized state control. We often push, quite appropriately, for more centralized control in matters such as the environment, abortion, marriage rights and other issues, often for consistency across jurisdictions or simply because that's where we have political control, but somehow its offensive when others act similarly when it comes to firearms?

If the old state firearm preemption laws or new standing stating statutes are offensive, against the public welfare, or lack public support, the proper response is to lobby the state legislature, not ignore state law. Both laws can be rescinded as easily as they passed.

[Demit]

48. My god, you are pompous.

And verbose, and repetitive. Those aren't assets, you know.

[branford]

49. I also accurately portray the issues in the litigations and current state of the law,

inconvenient facts which you seem to desperately want to ignore.

Nevertheless, you are certainly free to do little more than continue complaining that it's just not fair that firearm regulation will be struck down, regardless of the law or popular will, or lament the evils of the NRA. It's not exactly a winning strategy to enact firearm regulations in PA or most other jurisdictions.

[Shamash]

50. And you make a good point

Just not in the way I think you expected. Should a town in Connecticut be free to completely ignore that state's recent gun laws? After all, it would be making things less restrictive, even if it undercuts the entire state law (under the CT law, an "assault weapon" that is legally acquired within CT would be legal for that person to own anywhere in the state). I am presuming that is what you meant by "more liberal than a state law", since it would not make much legal sense to take a position that only Democrat-run city governments get to unilaterally ignore state laws.

[randys1]

29. Why in the WORLD would anyone need to travel with a gun

[Lurks Often]

32. Are you that clueless?

How about traveling to the range or a competition or just even bringing it home from the store?

[randys1]

34. Yeah, I am the clueless one

[NickB79]

40. People drive hundreds of miles every fall to deer hunt here in MN

Thousands of deer hunters travel from the Twin Cities to cabins and public lands in the northern half of the state, or across the border into Wisconsin. Thousands travel to North and South Dakota to hunt ducks as they migrate south for the winter.

Lots of hunters travel long distances to indulge their hobby.

[GGJohn]

54. When in the WORLD did we get a Dept. of Needs?

Need has nothing to do with it, it's a personal choice whether or not to carry while traveling.

[hack89]

56. Every time I go to a shooting competition? Nt

[Travis_0004]

52. Pensylvania has firearm preemption.

That means a local government can not pass any gun control laws, so its easier for a gun owner to know and follow all laws.

The law is passed by the local government and should be thrown out, even its a good law. The correct action is to pass it on a statewide level.

[beevul]

27. The right to make sure that towns don't exercise authority that is not theirs to exercise. N/T

[Demit]

33. Are you a gun rights advocate?

What is your objection to reporting your gun lost or stolen? Do you have an objection? If so, can you explain to me the reasoning behind your objection?

[Calista241]

64. I think reporting lost / stolen firearms laws are a great idea.

The state should pass a law that mandates this. Local towns and cities should not have these laws that contradict state law.

There are many other things that i support; like access to abortion, marijuana, right to protest, sodomy, etc, that i don't want some douchbag mayor or town council deciding violate their personal idea of what the law should be.

All this law does, is bring local ordinances in line with state law. By and large, this is a good thing. It's just bad luck the gun rights lobby has seized upon this to further their agenda.

[snort]

4. Cue the Cartridge Kissers.

Yay America!

[onehandle]

5. Fixed headline: Corporations Interfere With Small Town Americas' Rights

You're welcome.

[hack89]

7. Why should cities have to obey 40 year old state laws?

Don't they expire or something?

[samsingh]

9. frivilous law suits

an evil organization through and through

[branford]

11. What exactly is "frivolous" about the lawsuit.

State firearms law preempt local ordinances, a situation common in many states, usually to ensure uniformity of laws within a state. Localities, particularly in and around Philadelphia, have a number of firearm laws that do not comply with or contradict state law.

The recent PA state law simply makes it easier to challenge these already unlawful ordinances, and raises the penalties for the municipalities. Many localities, particularly Philadelphia, have already paid out numerous civil settlements when they've tried enforce these local laws, lost and were subsequently sued.

You may like the local ordinances, wish they weren't challenged, oppose firearms, and believe that the NRA or other gun rights organizations are the manifestations of pure evil on earth, but alleging the lawsuits are frivolous is legally ridiculous.

[bobclark86]

15. Ah, but without a special state law written by the GOP...

... to specifically allow it (a non-aggrieved person or group given standing to sue), then the only people who could sue would be residents charged under the laws. As opposed to groups that haven't been affected at all.

[branford]

19. Localities in PA, particularly around Philadelphia, have been notorious for flouting

PA state gun laws. Many of these localities have also paid-out large sums of taxpayer money to settle lawsuits when they tried to enforce these local laws.

Are you really that surprised that state legislators might have become annoyed when local authorities choose to ignore or contradict them? The standing law does not change the legality of any state or local ordinance, it's simply a reminder to localities that they must follow state law.

It's a similar situation to the PLCAA. Gun control groups filed numerous entirely meritless and harassing lawsuits against firearm manufacturers and vendors, so Congress reacted by federally banning such lawsuits. For every action, there will be a reaction.

The law is also no less valid because it was passed by a GOP legislature or governor. If the new Democratic governor or any PA state legislators wish to repeal the law, there is no legal impediment to do so other than simple democracy.

[samsingh]

24. sue me

[branford]

39. Huh?

You're the one that claimed the various lawsuits were "frivolous."

I welcome your legal analysis. However, as a licensed and practicing trial attorney, I can assure you that claims the "NRA is evil" do not constitute a meritorious defense for any of the localities.

I would note that virtually all of the towns and cities sued have now indicated they intend to repeal the challenged statutes. That's hardly a demonstration of the lawsuits' lack of merit.

[samsingh]

71. i still think the nra is evil - that isn't a counter to their suit

but they are evil in bringing it - especially when many of their repug members would argue that other progressive lawsuits are a waste of legal resources and deem them to be frivolous.

[bobclark86]

13. Well, if the state had a law saying...

No municipality could pass stricter abortion restrictions than the state level, and then Scranton lawmakers demanded transvaginal ultrasounds, most here would crap their pants (myself included, surprisingly for a member of a website called "Democratic Underground&quot .

Think about that one for just a second.

My role as devil's advocate aside, this ticks me off for a reason not involving the NRA: Republicans, who say decisions are best made at the local level (like creationism in schools), demand the little guys bow down to the big, bad big government above them.

Oh, then there's the bit about the state letting anybody and their sister have standing in a lawsuit that doesn't actually affect them. That is bull. Why can't they just file an amicus brief and provide funds for lawyers like every other case?

[Blue_Tires]

16. The NRA's time would probably be better served

by trying to make it *slightly* harder for your local NWO/black helicopter nutbar to facilitate his next mass shooting; along with tattooing in the average yokel's brain that it isn't the smartest idea to leave loaded weapons within easy access of their toddlers (I seem to read a new "Two-year-old finds gun under bed and shoots sibling/parent" story every week or two)

[randys1]

31. NRA should be in history books, nowhere else

[GGJohn]

55. Oh but it is in the history books as the most effective gun rights lobbying group

ever.

[aikoaiko]

21. The Empire Strikes Back.

The best of the trilogy.

[SoapBox]

30. Ditto to FUCK the NRA.

Filthy bastards...some how, some way, we've GOR to find a way to shut it down.

...a haven for Domestic Terrorists and Murderer Wanna Be's.

[secondvariety]

45. The speed limit

on the streets of my neighboring city are different than where I live. It's an inconvenience for me and I might get a ticket so maybe I'll sue.

[hack89]

57. Did the state grant your city the right to set it's own speed limits?

i suspect they did so your suit will fail.

[secondvariety]

72. What's the difference?

State roads, maintained with state dollars and personnel. Why should a community be able to decide what speed limit to have on a state road yet not be able to decide it's own gun laws? Because the state says they can on speed limits but not on gun laws is just honey covered bullshit.

The gutting of local control is just another right wing power grab.

[hack89]

73. So cities can pass their own laws on voting, abortion

Or gay marriage? Is absolute local control truly what we want?

[secondvariety]

75. Well,

considering the attempts to curb voting/abortion/gay marriage rights are coming from mostly the same state legislatures that are so hell bent on usurping local gun laws, I don't think that's a real good example.


This is the kind of bullshit Floridians have to put up with since the state made their power grab;

http://www.claimsjournal.com/news/southeast/2014/01/30/243661.htm

[hack89]

76. Local power is agnostic

Either towns have or they don't. Do you support universal local control regardless what kind of laws they pass?

[secondvariety]

78. I never said anything like that.

Do you approve of backyard shooting ranges in densely populated neighborhoods? It's a rhetorical question because I already know the answer...

[hack89]

79. Of course not

You would think that important matters like that are regulated at the state level. I would never shoot at such a range - it is too dangerous. I have been shooting 40 years without a serious accident because I understand that shooting guns is a serious business.

[secondvariety]

80. Well,

backyard ranges are what we got when Big Brother in Tallahassee decided that local communities and the citizens who live there were stepping on the God given right to shoot a gun practically anywhere.

I'm guessing by your avatar that you live in Washington State. I'm also going to guess that most of your citizens and politicians are actually sane. In Florida, the only thing that protected the citizens were local laws. The usurping of local gun ordinances is just one example of the state overreach here.

[hack89]

81. I actually live in Rhode Island

But I grew up and went to college in Washington.

[hack89]

74. Should any NY town be able to pass gun laws

That are more lax than the SAFE act? Could they, for example, legalize assault weapons within their boundaries?

[Dont call me Shirley]

51. Fuck the gun makers

[DeSwiss]

61. When facing a superior enemy.....

...flanking actions and guerrilla warfare are recommended instead of frontal assaults.

For example, it is within the local government's authority to set environmental standards that would apply to everyone for safety and health reasons. As some communities who've successfully fought frackers have found, you can't beat corporations directly because they can outlast most in the courts and their own state government's are usually against the people because: $. However, you can set health and safety standards that make going elsewhere more profitable.

Attempts to directly control gun ownership runs into too many higher jurisdictions of authority, not to mention the 2nd Amendment. But just as you can require chemical and gas companies and/or persons using such volatile/dangerous chemicals or substances to mark, identify and/or post warnings signs to insure public safety, one could likewise require the same of gun owners.

Like making people with guns have to wear signs like this one on their clothing At. All. Times. while in public, so people would know where the potential danger is:

[center] [/center]

With the historical records of gun related deaths, maiming and injuries as demonstrable proof of the validity of the danger of guns, any community should be able to argue that persons in possession of such a proven killer should at least be labeled so people can choose whether to be close to them or not.

- Even if we won't do it for GMOs......

K&R

''Whomever's in-charge, gets to define everybody else.'' ~Paul Cienfuegos, Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund

[GGJohn]

65. Uh, no, they can't.

Any locality attempting to pass any such law would be in court so fast, it would make their heads spin.
I seem to remember a certain country back in the 40's that did something like that, whom would that be?

[DeSwiss]

82. If you'll note from the video......

...that they've already won using this ''community standards'' defense against industrial pig farms. The community in-question here didn't try to regulate or stop the pig farm operations when the company set their sights on their town. They can't do that because corporations are people my friend.

But they have the right to set environmental and health standards that apply to everyone in the community. Corporations, too. Because whether it's pig shit bacteria that kills you or bullets it's still environmental standards within the community. And that is the area of control local communities have. The fight against corporations has been using the wrong laws to try and stop them.

If the community passes it and makes it apply to all, how can anyone say they're being discriminated against? They can't. They aren't saying you can't have a weapon. Just that you must provide warnings or signage if you want to use it ''safely'' within the confines of the public arena. ''The community.'' They aren't telling you you can't protect yourself at home. Just that if you want to carry it in public, people have a right to be warned.

If the Supreme Court says communities can make porn shops and liquor stores locate away from schools or require specific signage for morals and/or health reasons, then the precedent is set.

- In the case of the pig farm operation -- they ended up deciding to move the operation somewhere else. Even though they'd already invested millions up to that point. The reason is, the corporations don't want to lose on this legal point because the implications are VAST.

[branford]

84. You really do not understand how courts review potential infringements of rights.

Courts are not shy about invalidating backdoor attempts to regulate or limit rights. Moreover, a law does not have to "discriminate" against some people to be unconstitutional. Universal applicability is not the only determinant of whether a statute is lawful. It also would not protect a local ordinance that involves matters preempted by state or federal law.

Pig farms, liquor stores and even porn shops are not the equivalent of owning and carrying firearms. You also apparently do not understand the limitations of zoning.

A locality, if otherwise permitted under state or federal law (i.e., preepemtion), could regulate the location of commercial enterprises such as stores that sell constitutionally protected items like porn and firearms, but could not effectively ban such stores, no less broadly restrict or disincentive the personal ownership of such covered items, by ancillary legislation. In fact, Chicago recently tried the zoning strategy to limit gun stores and firing ranges which are required to meet the conditions of a firearms license within the jurisdiction. The city's entirely expected loss in the courts and payment of damages and legal fees is now helping groups like the Second Amendment Foundation finance further challenges to gun laws nationwide.

Mandating that a human being actually be compelled to wear a warning sign at all times as a condition of exercising protected rights is so ludicrous as a legal matter that I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

[branford]

69. Wow, that would be in violation of both the First and Second Amendments,

federal and state privacy rights, and yet manage to still run afoul of state preemption.

Are you really suggesting that people be required to wear warning signs 24 hours a day? All that such an attempted legal and political "flanking action" would achieve is howls of laughter in the state legislature, virtually all town halls, and courts in every state, and if by some odd miracle is passed by any locality, large civil settlements and payment of legal fees to those aggrieved.

[Fred Sanders]

77. The warning sign is a great idea. Warn off the criminals. The NRA should support it.

[blkmusclmachine]

62. Never

Really

Accountable

[Skittles]

66. NRA, representing paranoid gun humpers

f*** them all

[olddots]

70. corporate fascism at its moat obvious