Novel law prompts towns agree to rescind gun measures

[Judi Lynn]

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the new law in putting nearly 100 Pennsylvania municipalities on notice that they would face legal action unless they rescinded their firearms laws.

At least 22 of those municipalities have already repealed them, or indicated they planned to do so, according to Prince, who specializes in firearms law and is based in southeastern Pennsylvania.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

We need to restrict the easy availability of guns to the public, not remove the common sense laws on the books.

[NickB79]

2. Standardized, state-wide gun regulations are not a bad thing, IMO

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]

3. I agree nt

[Yo_Mama]

5. Yes, you could be legal on one street and unknowingly illegal on the next!!!

Plus this follows the general principle of preemption.

[petronius]

8. I agree - particularly when it comes to laws touching on civil liberties, state-wide

consistency is preferable to a patchwork...

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

26. If you can afford to move to states whose legislatures aren't

completely overrun with Republicans, sure.

Otherwise state laws tend to be idiotic and nightmarish.

[Shamash]

4. I agree with standardized laws

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]

7. Welcome to DU, Shamash!

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]

6. NRA thugs infringing on the rights of municipalities.

All to line the pockets of corporations

[Duckhunter935]

9. I am sure you will feel the same

when towns start coming up with laws on gay marriage, LGBT issues and abortions. Statewide commonality is best.

[onehandle]

10. 'Corporations are people, my friend.'

Say what you mean.

[Duckhunter935]

11. no

please do not tell me what I think.

[Demit]

20. LOL!

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]

19. If they're not people, how do you enter into a legal contract?

[Shemp Howard]

21. Municipalities actually have very few rights.

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]

22. They're enforcing a law enacted 40 years ago that cities have been ignoring

Hell, the NRA wasn't even all that batshit crazy 40 years ago when this law was first made.

[GGJohn]

23. Same thing Florida did a few years ago

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]

12. You will carry a gun and you will like it

........ it won't be long before the NRA want every baby to be given a gun at birth.

[GGJohn]

13. You're a little late to the party.

Many here have already claimed that, despite how ridiculous that is.

[onehandle]

15. Supporters of the GOPNRA will tsk tsk at you.

Best to ignore them.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

27. Ive always thought that people with belligerent, abusive personalities should remain unarmed

[NaturalHigh]

14. You mean cities can't impose those effective gun bans like Chicago had?

Those ones that kept all those handguns out of the hands of criminals?

[Shamash]

17. Wait, I thought it was DC

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]

18. I'm not sure which was more successgul, Chicago or D.C.

Both were violence-free utopias before those gun bans were ruled unconstitutional. You couldn't find a gun anywhere.

[Jesus Malverde]

16. There is a high correlation between strict gun laws and minority communities.

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]

24. Earlier Pennsylvania gun news: State Poised to Strike Casino Firearms Ban

State Poised to Strike Casino Firearms Ban

AG’s office says Gaming Board doesn’t 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 wasn’t 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 Board’s 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 IRRC’s vote next week something of a formality, since the change will merely bring the Gaming Control Board’s 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]

25. Will it make any difference?

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.