PA Judge Strikes Down Gun Control Ordinances Implemented After Synagogue Massacre

Status
Not open for further replies.
The implication was that the city would appeal but this ruling is a great thing. Missoula, MT did a similar thing, passed their own UBC law. The State's Attny told them it violated the state constitution but they tried anyways. First ruling shot it down so the appealed, and in a bizarre twist the appeal reversed it. Then the state Supreme Court rules against the city. The infuriating thing is that their warchest was all taxpayer money and of course those that wrote and passed a law that they knew was unconstitutional will face no consequences for their actions (although they will face the voters eventually).
 
I haven't lived in PA in almost a year, so I haven't been following.

But since it was basically a political stunt by Pittsburgh's liberal politicians, knowing that there would be issues .

And knowing that the masses have a short memory. I wouldn't be surprised if it kinda ends there.

But I also wouldn't be surprised if keeps going too.

It's easy to play with tax payer money....
 
Phaedrus/69 said:
Missoula, MT did a similar thing, passed their own UBC law. The State's Attny told them it violated the state constitution but they tried anyways. First ruling shot it down so the appealed, and in a bizarre twist the appeal reversed it. Then the state Supreme Court rules against the city. The infuriating thing is that their warchest was all taxpayer money and of course those that wrote and passed a law that they knew was unconstitutional will face no consequences for their actions (although they will face the voters eventually).
Click to expand...
Something like 25 years ago, I thought about retiring to Montana and subscribed to the Missoula newspaper to check out the town's culture. Some of the things the city council did way back then reminded me of the most left wing parts of California. Since they haven't changed their ways, the local citizenry must approve. In 2018, my wife and I spent a week at a guest ranch east of Missoula. They told me Missoula isn't representative of the state.

(The ranch was Rich's Montana Guest Ranch. We like the place very much. They really do cater to all levels of riding skill and match horses to riders. There are easy rides for novices. Since we are experienced riders, the wrangler took us places I would have a hard time negotiating on foot.)
 
In some ways Missoula is very representative of Montana but politically not so much. In other ways, like their typical views on the environment, I feel like it's Montana but amped up a level. Personally I like Missoula a lot and would certainly move there if I found the right job. Then again, I live in Bozeman!:rofl:
 
Phaedrus/69 said:
The implication was that the city would appeal but this ruling is a great thing. Missoula, MT did a similar thing, passed their own UBC law. The State's Attny told them it violated the state constitution but they tried anyways. First ruling shot it down so the appealed, and in a bizarre twist the appeal reversed it. Then the state Supreme Court rules against the city. The infuriating thing is that their warchest was all taxpayer money and of course those that wrote and passed a law that they knew was unconstitutional will face no consequences for their actions (although they will face the voters eventually).
Click to expand...
The same thing happened with the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. They put a proposition (Prop H) on the ballot in 2005 to ban handguns. They KNEW it wouldn't stand up because it conflicted with state preemption laws. A nearly identical proposition had been previously overturned on those grounds. After it passed, the NRA took it to court, just like everyone knew they would. The NRA won on state premption grounds, just like everyone knew they would. Then SF appealed it. And lost, just like everyone knew they would.

San Francisco squandered nearly a million dollars, including $380,000 to the NRA for legal costs, on a proposition everyone knew would be overturned. That's a million that could have gone to repair the roads or house the homeless.

But at least they "made a statement". For the children.
 
One of the items in Gov. Northam's antigun package of proposals, here in Virginia, is the repeal of state preemption. This could pass more easily than the draconian state AWB, that is also being proposed, but could have an even worse impact. Whether my guns were banned at the state level, or at the county level, I would still have to move them.
 
Long ago, like many others from all over the world, I made a choice to live free in Florida. Florida's state lawmakers understand that freedom is not free, and a small town bureaucrats will constantly try to take those freedoms away, as such Florida has very broad preemption with meaningful sanctions removing and punishing lawmakers that purport to make laws breaking the law....

(3) PROHIBITIONS; PENALTIES.—
(a) Any person, county, agency, municipality, district, or other entity that violates the Legislature’s occupation of the whole field of regulation of firearms and ammunition, as declared in subsection (1), by enacting or causing to be enforced any local ordinance or administrative rule or regulation impinging upon such exclusive occupation of the field shall be liable as set forth herein.
(b) If any county, city, town, or other local government violates this section, the court shall declare the improper ordinance, regulation, or rule invalid and issue a permanent injunction against the local government prohibiting it from enforcing such ordinance, regulation, or rule. It is no defense that in enacting the ordinance, regulation, or rule the local government was acting in good faith or upon advice of counsel.
(c) If the court determines that a violation was knowing and willful, the court shall assess a civil fine of up to $5,000 against the elected or appointed local government official or officials or administrative agency head under whose jurisdiction the violation occurred.
(d) Except as required by applicable law, public funds may not be used to defend or reimburse the unlawful conduct of any person found to have knowingly and willfully violated this section.
(e) A knowing and willful violation of any provision of this section by a person acting in an official capacity for any entity enacting or causing to be enforced a local ordinance or administrative rule or regulation prohibited under paragraph (a) or otherwise under color of law shall be cause for termination of employment or contract or removal from office by the Governor.
(f) A person or an organization whose membership is adversely affected by any ordinance, regulation, measure, directive, rule, enactment, order, or policy promulgated or caused to be enforced in violation of this section may file suit against any county, agency, municipality, district, or other entity in any court of this state having jurisdiction over any defendant to the suit for declaratory and injunctive relief and for actual damages, as limited herein, caused by the violation. A court shall award the prevailing plaintiff in any such suit:
1. Reasonable attorney’s fees and costs in accordance with the laws of this state, including a contingency fee multiplier, as authorized by law; and
2. The actual damages incurred, but not more than $100,000.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...tute&URL=0700-0799/0790/Sections/0790.33.html
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...tute&URL=0700-0799/0790/Sections/0790.33.html

I love Florida!!!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

C
  • Locked
N.J. Judge Voids City's Gun Control Law
Replies
4
Views
770
Zero_DgZ
Z
Beren
  • Locked
PA Courthouse gun ban unconstitutional
Replies
1
Views
440
SJG26
S
H
  • Locked
Good news for gun owners in Deerfield Il.
Replies
7
Views
675
ilbob
ilbob
D
  • Locked
Philadelphia: Judge Puts City's New Gun Control Laws on Hold
Replies
5
Views
904
Bubbles
B
J
  • Locked
(CO) Court weighs city's ability to write local firearms laws
2
Replies
27
Views
1K
jimpeel
J
Back
Top