Novel new law prompts towns to agree to rescind gun measures

[beevul]

Novel new law prompts towns to agree to rescind gun measures


By MICHAEL RUBINKAM
19 hours ago

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the new law in putting nearly 100 Pennsylvania municipalities on notice that they would face legal action unless they rescinded their firearms laws.

At least 22 of those municipalities have already repealed them, or indicated they planned to do so, according to Prince, who specializes in firearms law and is based in southeastern Pennsylvania.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.

"What gives a town or a city the authority to say, 'We're in Pennsylvania, but we don't care about Pennsylvania law?' It's laughable," said Dalton, founder of American Gun Owners Alliance in the Pocono Mountains, one of the groups represented by Prince.


http://news.yahoo.com/novel-law-prompts-towns-agree-rescind-gun-measures-164457584.html

Before anyone chimes in with the usual blather about how municipalities should be able to determine their own gun laws, first, I'd like to hear how supportive those same people would be if a municipality decides state and federal gun laws no longer apply to it. Second I'd like to hear whether they think the same should hold true to other laws, say abortion for example.

[upaloopa]

1. 22 first graders were killed by a 21 yr old

wielding an abortion!
Come on make sense!

[beevul]

3. And we have our first contestant...

And we have our first contestant. Step close to the microphone please, so everyone can hear you.

Would you be supportive of a municipality which decides state and federal gun laws no longer apply to it, the same way so many municipalities wish to ignore Pennsylvania state law?

Would you support municipalities having the ability to determine their own laws across the boards?


Please speak loudly so everyone can hear you.

[upaloopa]

4. Would you be willing to try to understand

that other people see guns through a different paradigm then you do?
On edit: I think I understand your position I wonder if you understand theirs in the context that they are trying to reduce gun violence and not that their motive is to take away your rights without a common sense reason.

[Shamash]

6. Everyone sees everything through a different paradigm

Pro-life types see themselves as people saving children from being murdered, not as people trying to take away someone else's rights without a common sense reason. Should they have the right to ignore Roe v. Wade because of their context?

Carving out exceptions for yourself because of "special context" is how we got a President with a secret "get out of jail free" memo for ignoring US laws on torture (a ratified treaty is Federal law).

[upaloopa]

7. Whether you see it or not there is a difference.

Guns are for killing and often times the person killed is not the one who is exercising a right. Abortion on the other hand involves the woman who is exercising a right.

[Shamash]

8. Clearly you don't see it

Since a pro-life person could and would say "abortions are for killing and the person killed is not the one who is exercising a right".

Get your head out of your paradigm and accept that the reasoning behind your point of view can and will be used by people you disagree with. And those people will sometimes be running the government.

If you don't agree with your own argument if a conservative uses it for their pet issue (abortion, same-sex marriage, religious freedom, censorship, etc.), the problem is not the conservative, the problem is that you have a flawed argument.

[upaloopa]

9. Well what pro life people say and reality are two different

things. On the other hand a person shot with a gun is shot with a gun no debate about reality.

[Shamash]

12. I see the problem

I didn't realize you were reading from the super-secret version of the Constitution that says pro-life people, racists, homophobes, Islamophobes and people not tightly connected to reality never get to pass any laws. You should have told me you were part of Secret Masters of Liberalism so we could have avoided all this confusion.

[upaloopa]

13. I am talking about reality. If you need false

beliefs to support your argument I guess there is a problem.

[beevul]

10. Whether you realize it or not, you just hit the nail on the head.

"Guns are for killing..."

You said earlier that "I wonder if you understand theirs in the context that they are trying to reduce gun violence and not that their motive is to take away your rights without a common sense reason."

The context you yourself add to this, rather than the one you describe above, is "guns are for killing..."

That's what you see, thats what you believe, thats what you feel, and thats where you come from when it comes to this issue.

It doesn't matter to you, that there are over 300 million firearms in the hands of over 100 million people, and that the homicide number is ten thousandish.

It doesn't matter to you that 99.9 percent of guns - even if you include suicides - AREN'T used for what you say "guns are for". As far as you're concerned, "guns are for killing", and that justifies anything you say, anything you propose, and in your mind makes anything you may suggest "reasonable".


For people that are "trying to reduce gun violence..." you guys sure do seem to focus your laws on the folks that aren't committing it.


Although in fairness, it should be pointed out that here on DU, you folks are so desperate to end gun violence that you've dedicated an entire forum to doing everything possible in every way, to end gun violence. Any idea is welcome, from any poster, regardless their stand on guns.

Oh wait, my bad...You guys made a forum, where nothing EXCEPT gun control is accepted as a solution.

Nevermind.

[beevul]

11. I am willing to understand that you did not answer the questions I asked you.

Last edited Mon Jan 12, 2015, 07:54 PM - Edit history (1)

Would you be supportive of a municipality which decides state and federal gun laws no longer apply to it, the same way so many municipalities wish to ignore Pennsylvania state law?

Would you support municipalities having the ability to determine their own laws across the boards?


Please speak loudly so everyone can hear you.


Are you here to discuss and debate, or be evasive and play games?

[ileus]

14. So if they come up with a common sense reason to take away gun???

[upaloopa]

15. They don't want to take away guns.

I think that is the first step we should take. Only the extreme on both sides talk about taking away guns. It isn't going to happen .
If we can agree on that maybe we can begin to see if there is anything to be done to reduce gun deaths.

[beevul]

16. "Mike Bloomberg and I want guns gone".

Were supposed to believe you, or our lying eyes?

[upaloopa]

19. Who has the power to take away guns?

I said the extremes say that. They have no power.

[beevul]

23. And in the other forum, and across DU people like you support MDA.

"They have no power."


If you had your way they would, and even if I'm wrong about you, theres a whole bunch that still applies to.

Show me a gun control group, and I'll show you a group that yolks the strength of gun ban supporters.

What happened to "They don't want to take away guns"?

Are you admitting you were wrong?

[upaloopa]

26. What is MDA

We have no power to take away guns

[beevul]

27. Moms Demand Action.

You know, the gun control group your buddies keep calling a "gun safety" group?

"We have no power to take away guns"

You and people who feel about guns like you, are trying very hard to attain that power.


Now make us all laugh and deny it.

[upaloopa]

28. Me personally I am in no way for taking away guns

I think guns have been a part of this country's history and always will be. My history with guns is mainly with single action .22's and in the Army in Vietnam where I carried a M-14 and a 1911 Colt automatic. I used a M-60 and 50 Cal also
I don't own a gun now having sold my .22 a couple of weeks ago.
I want a reduction of gun violence that is my goal.

[beevul]

29. Talk to fred. Talk to the other gun ban supporters.

They are the ones standing in the way.

The first thing you might do, is convince them that theres actually a difference between suicide and homicide.

[upaloopa]

30. I can't speak for anyone but myself

I think if anyone was truly honest with themselves they would agree that guns are here to stay. My guess is that folks here are more into fighting then anything. Not just this topic but others as well.

[beevul]

31. To be fair, I did add to the post you replied to.

Right as you posted yours.

[GGJohn]

32. ...

My guess is that folks here are more into fighting then anything. Not just this topic but others as well.

Truer words were never spoken.

[oneshooter]

17. How can we believe you.

After all you would rather sell a firearm for profit, than having it destroyed so that it can not harm anyone.

Hypocrite?

[upaloopa]

20. I did not make a profit off selling a gun

Let's be civil in 2015 right?

[oneshooter]

21. You did not destroy it, thus you made a profit.

And I am being as polite as most of the anti's on DU.

[benEzra]

18. So nobody wants to ban "assault weapons" or over-10-round magazines anymore?

Or are you taking the position that as long as Brady/Bloomberg/et al say they don't want to ban *all* guns, then proposed bans short of "all" (even bans on the most popular civilian guns) don't count?

[beevul]

24. Hey ben, as long as we allow you just 1 book, its not a book ban.

You know their logic.

[petronius]

2. Good news and a good outcome for PA - statewide consistency is a good thing for laws

that touch on civil rights and liberties in particular.

The only thing I might wish was different would be for the change to state law to open up the standing-to-sue door for advocacy groups addressing the whole range of rights/liberties (the whole BoR); IIRC, this current change was specific to groups and laws pertaining to firearms only - I don't know if other groups are still required to show harm before being able to bring suit against a local government...

[Shamash]

5. See also the identical DU story from yesterday

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=thread&address=1014986159

[jimmy the one]

22. What the GN's approach enables

Reading City Council signaled last week it intended to repeal laws that ban firing weapons within city limits and require owners to report lost or stolen weapons.

Yeah, how dare cities say that guns cannot be fired within city limits except at shooting ranges? sheesh, how infringing can they get? If a law abiding gun owner's favorite team wins the world series or super bowl & he wants to celebrate by firing off a few rounds in the privacy of his row house backyard, who the hell does the govt think it is to deny him that pursuit of happiness????
And how dare anyone say that gunowners must report lost firearms? when one of their young kids is apt to stumble across it & refind it while toddling about in the house? then what? he needs report it unlost to cost the govt more money????
And stolen firearms? sheesh again, once it's stolen how can anyone hold a gunowner responsible for it's misuse? Find that stealing thief who stole the gun, don't punish the law abiding gunnut!!!!

[beevul]

25. Its kind of like you coming on to my property and trying to dictate to me. It isn't your place.

Last edited Tue Jan 13, 2015, 06:12 PM - Edit history (2)

Similarly, it isn't the cities place to do what it tried to do. Its the place of the state legislature.

"Yeah, how dare cities say..."

See, you could have stopped there and you would have surprised everyone by being correct in this case.

"If a law abiding gun owner's favorite team wins the world series or super bowl & he wants to celebrate by firing off a few rounds in the privacy of his row house backyard, who the hell does the govt think it is to deny him that pursuit of happiness????"

The government CAN tell him not to should safety be an issue. Just not the city government.

"And how dare anyone say that gunowners must report lost firearms? when one of their young kids is apt to stumble across it & refind it while toddling about in the house? then what? he needs report it unlost to cost the govt more money????"

Lost firearms in the owners own home are a big problem now? And the answer is for them to call and report that they've lost a firearm in their own home?

That's news to me, and about everyone else. I'd have thought the doctrinaire gun control pushers couldn't get any more silly...And I'd have been wrong.