Nutter defiantly signs five gun laws

Status
Not open for further replies.

funnybone

Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2007
Messages
103
:fire:


Nutter defiantly signs five gun laws
Council's measures appear to fly in the face of state law and legal precedent. The NRA says it will sue.
By Jeff Shields

Inquirer Staff Writer

Mayor Nutter likened himself and City Council members yesterday to the band of rebels who formed this country as he signed five new gun-control laws that defy the state legislature and legal precedent.
> "Almost 232 years ago, a group of concerned Americans took matters in their own hands and did what they needed to do by declaring that the time had come for a change," Nutter said as he signed the bills in front of a table of confiscated weapons outside the police evidence room in City Hall.

> "We are going to make ourselves independent of the violence that's been taking place in this city for far too long," he said.

> The five laws - called everything from unconstitutional to criminal by critics - do the following:

> Limit handgun purchases to one a month.

> Require lost or stolen firearms to be reported to police within 24 hours.

> Prohibit individuals under protection-from-abuse orders from possessing guns if ordered by the court.

> Allow removal of firearms from "persons posing a risk of imminent personal injury" to themselves or others.

> Outlaw the possession and sale of certain assault weapons.

> Nutter said he would begin to enforce the laws immediately, with the exception of the one-gun-a-month requirement, which takes effect in six months.

> He and Council are in for a fight, however. The city has tried and failed for three decades to buck the 1974 state law that reserves gun regulation to the state legislature. The state's preeminence appeared to be cemented in a 1996 Supreme Court ruling that allowed the legislature to prevent Philadelphia and Pittsburgh from enacting local gun laws.

> Recent efforts include a 2005 referendum in which city voters, by a 4-1 ratio, demanded that the state allow the city to pass its own gun laws. Council members Darrell L. Clarke and Donna Reed Miller sponsored a set of gun-control measures bills last year, then sued the legislature to allow them to move forward. That case is pending.

> National Rifle Association spokesman John Hohenwarter said he expected the organization to sue "within a short time frame."

> Kim Stolfer, vice chairman of the Pennsylvania Sportsmen's Association's legislative committee, said the organization was considering its legal options and suggested that the enactment of the laws was a criminal act.

> "He's committing five misdemeanor crimes," Stolfer said. "What kind of message is he sending when he and City Council are willing to commit crimes for issues that are not going to work?"

> Nutter and Council are not likely to find a great deal of support in the legislature.

> State Representative John M. Perzel (R., Phila.) said through a spokesman that the laws were unconstitutional. House Speaker Dennis M. O'Brien (R. Phila.) did not return a call for comment, and State Sen. Vincent J. Fumo (D., Phila.) declined to comment.

> Even the city's fiercest proponent of stricter gun laws in the legislature, Democratic Rep. Dwight Evans, offered only lukewarm support.

> Evans spokeswoman Johnna Pro said: "No one . . . feels the frustration" of city leaders more than Evans, so he would not criticize them.

> But Evans, she said, also is a leader in the House of Representatives and "believes that everyone needs to allow the process to work, even though the process, at times, may be excruciatingly slow and incredibly unresponsive."

> Phil Goldsmith, president of the gun-control advocacy group CeaseFire PA, said "it's worth trying" to enact and test the laws.

> "It's a shame the city has to do something like this because the legislature has failed to exercise its responsibilities," Goldsmith said.

> Council members Clarke and Miller pared their package down from nine bills, including two that would create registries of gun sales, to the five that they say would stand a constitutional challenge.

> Nutter embraced the idea of taking "direct action" to challenge a legal status quo to protect city residents.

> "If we all sat around bemoaning what the law was on a regular basis," Nutter said. "I'd probably still be picking cotton somewhere as opposed to being mayor of the city of Philadelphia."

>


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contact staff writer Jeff Shields at 215-854-4565 or [email protected].
>

http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news_update/20080411_Nutter_defiantly_signs_five_gun_laws.html
 
Thankfully, in the fine state of Pennsylvania what that fellow is doing won't stand. PA does not allow parts of the state to legislate contradictory to the state law. The only compromise that I am aware of is that in a city of the first class, of which only Philadelphia is considered, open carry requires a CCW permit.

Let us write to the PA state representatives and tell them that the Commonwealth cannot afford divisive politics. If Nutter has a problem with the laws of the great state of Pennsylvania, then let him go elsewhere.
 
Why shouldn't he and the council members who have tried to pull one over on the state of PA not be tried, convicted, and imprisoned for this? It isn't like they just broke some minor traffic law, they are abusing their public office and ignoring state law. Surely that should be grounds for removal from office and a heavy punishment shouldn't it?
 
The only compromise that I am aware of is that in a city of the first class, of which only Philadelphia is considered, open carry requires a CCW permit.

That's...ironic.

> Require lost or stolen firearms to be reported to police within 24 hours.

This...doesn't seem that unreasonable.
 
It would be nice when people post things like this if you would mention what city you're talking about and, in this case for example, who Nutter is at the BEGINNING of the thread.
 
Doesn't seem unreasonable until some body's home is burgled while he is away for a few days and he gets prosecuted for reporting it late.

Sure they will say, "it won't be abused, the authorities will use discretion".

Except that someone will pay for it, sooner or later, and that is unacceptable, especially when it's adding more essentially meaningless laws to already crowded books.


Edit- Yes I also did not know who Nutter was or wherte this was until I followed the link.
 
so much for the rule of law....

according to the mayor and council, if they don't like the laws of the state, they just blow them off and make their own....

but if you blow of their laws, they'll throw you in the clink.

Ah! once again the hypocrisy of liberals revealed
 
Quote:
> Require lost or stolen firearms to be reported to police within 24 hours.

This...doesn't seem that unreasonable.

Would I report a stolen anything soon after I discovered it gone? Probably. I would want the police to know it is not in my possession if a crime is committed with the item, and I want to collect insurance.

I have a problem, however, when they tell me I have to report the theft. It's none of their business unless I make it theirs.
 
Michael Nutter said:
'If we all sat around bemoaning what the law was on a regular basis,' Nutter said. 'I'd probably still be picking cotton somewhere as opposed to being mayor of the city of Philadelphia.'

So, Mike, whatcha doin'? Making a parallel between slavery and Philadelphia having to follow Pennsylvania law? Sounds like a suspiciously racist argument to me, pal.

Take it for what it's worth.
 
Require lost or stolen firearms to be reported to police within 24 hours.

This...doesn't seem that unreasonable.

Doesn't seem unreasonable until some body's home is burgled while he is away for a few days and he gets prosecuted for reporting it late.
Requiring people to report stolen or lost firearms under penalty of law is a step in confiscation. It means when a firearm type is banned or restricted people that suddenly have "boating accidents" (see that mentioned a bit) or have thier firearm lost or stolen are pretty clearly in violation of the law.

When that is combined with requiring a record of sales and purchases, through either registration of some sort (regardless of what it is called) a permit each time etc and a restriction or necessity to document private transfers, then the state can know where every gun of every type legaly sold and possessed is.

If at a later date they wish to confiscate a type, and there is no legal way for people to not have those weapons without documentation then even by not having them they have commited a criminal offense.
So part of being ready for future confiscation is outlawing all undocumented forms of not having the firearm available. That includes being lost or stolen.
If a ban comes along, or officers attempt to go confiscate weapons (at say the behest of a crazy mayor, or during a disaster like in Katrina, or because they are prohibited for some reason in the future) and they say they were stolen but they don't have a police report filed previously, they can be charged.
If they suddenly have had accidents for various firearms 24 hour or 48 hour (whatever the law is made) etc immediately following a ban or just prior to an attempted confiscatione, it is pretty obvious they are merely convenient lies.
I imagine that alone would be probable cause for a search warrant.
Plus if a person reports a firearm lost or stolen, and then they are found to still possess that firearm later, in addition to whatever charges that gives them, they can also be tried for filing a false police report, and if they reported them lost or missing in court, or testified such information to a grand jury, then contempt of court, often a felony.


So requiring someone to report lost or stolen weapons is a very important part of firearm confiscation. It means that when someone cannot provide weapons on the spot for confiscation or inspection, they have commited various crimes, and also forfieted some rights to privacy etc because it gives probable cause to get a warrant.
 
its a grim day when those who make the laws decide they are above the law. they just get to pick which laws they follow and which are beneath them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top