Court Rules on Philly's Gun Laws

Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Apr 9, 2008
Messages
1,155
Likes
49
Location
South Shore
He blamed this week's fatal shooting of a Philadelphia police officer on the state's lax gun laws that he said allowed the assailant to use an illegal weapon.

State lawmakers were being "stunningly hypocritical" by claiming to support the police while failing to pass what Nutter called reasonable gun laws.

"You are either on the side of the criminals or you are on the side of the law-abiding people of Philadelphia," Nutter told a news conference.

Ok, so stricter gun laws would prevent this criminal from using an already illegal weapon? When will they learn that passing more restrictive gun laws does nothing to criminals. They already break the law to begin with.

This is good news though.
 

Palladin

NES Member
Rating - 100%
29   0   0
Joined
Mar 27, 2007
Messages
28,465
Likes
16,456
Location
Southern New Hampshire
That's Awesome!!

The mayor trying to corelate the shooting of a police officer, with a law banning assault weapons and only allowing one gun/month, is absolutely ludicrous.!
 

Scrivener

Banned
Rating - 100%
7   0   0
Joined
Sep 9, 2005
Messages
10,156
Likes
517
He blamed this week's fatal shooting of a Philadelphia police officer on the state's lax gun laws that he said allowed the assailant to use an illegal weapon.

State lawmakers were being "stunningly hypocritical" by claiming to support the police while failing to pass what Nutter called reasonable gun laws.

"You are either on the side of the criminals or you are on the side of the law-abiding people of Philadelphia," Nutter told a news conference.

The only one being "stunningly hypocritical" in this fiasco is the aptly-named Nutter.

Blaming a crime committed with an already-illegal gun on the absence of MORE mindless laws is hypocrisy.

Claiming that laws which already fail to prevent crime do so because there isn't enough law is folly.

And claiming that depriving citizens of the means of self-defense will make them safer is fraud.
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Feb 22, 2008
Messages
12,017
Likes
1,378
Location
Western Mass
A Pennsylvania state court ruled on Friday that Philadelphia does not have the right to set its own gun laws, striking down five measures passed by the city council last year.

That's pretty good, right there.

"You are either on the side of the criminals or you are on the side of the law-abiding people of Philadelphia," Nutter told a news conference.

Mayor Nutter certainly makes HIS position clear here.
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Mar 4, 2006
Messages
18,157
Likes
9,210
that is excellent news! Boston needs to be told the same thing about having its own mini AWB

Wouldn't do any good as MA has a preemption law that allows communities to pass gun control laws that are stricter than the states.

The Philly ruling had more to do with the city overstepping it's boundaries and very little to do with the RKBA.
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Feb 22, 2008
Messages
12,017
Likes
1,378
Location
Western Mass
Wouldn't do any good as MA has a preemption law that allows communities to pass gun control laws that are stricter than the states.

... and in any event, the Massachusetts approach would likely be to bring state laws into conformity with the most stringent local laws. Kind of like what happened to the "Reason For Issuance" vs. "Restriction" issue ... whereever there is uncertainy or regulatory conflict, tighten the screws.
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Feb 22, 2008
Messages
12,017
Likes
1,378
Location
Western Mass
Someone please tell me what the heck this means. Legalese is not my native language ...

2. Hawaii, Illinois and Nebraska do not have statewide firearm preemption of local ordinances. Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York have preemption through judicial ruling, not statute. In Massachusetts, local ordinances may be imposed if approved by the state legislature.

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=48
 

Scrivener

Banned
Rating - 100%
7   0   0
Joined
Sep 9, 2005
Messages
10,156
Likes
517
It means that municipalities in Hawaii, Illinois and Nebraska can pass laws more stringent than those of the state; municipalities in Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York cannot because the court, not the legislature, says they can't; and that MA has a process ("home rule" petitions) by which a municipality may enact a stricter law with the legislature's approval (read: Boston).
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Mar 4, 2006
Messages
18,157
Likes
9,210
And what "preemption law" might that be?

Not that I have much faith in the reliability and accuracy of the Brady Campaign...

PREEMPTION - LOCAL GUN LAWS
May municipalities enact law stronger than the state's? Yes

State law allows local cities or counties to enact local gun laws to regulate firearms that are stronger than state law or that fill loopholes in state law. There is no �preemption" of local government authority to regulate guns.

For example: Boston restricts possession by minors, restricts assault weapons and restricts large-capacity ammuntion magazines.

http://www.bradycampaign.org/legislation/state/viewstate.php?st=ma#preemption

I assume what they're referring to is the ability of the communities to go through the state legislature for permission to enact home rule petitions.

Whether that actually counts as a "preemption law" by definition is pretty much moot if the results are the same.
 

Scrivener

Banned
Rating - 100%
7   0   0
Joined
Sep 9, 2005
Messages
10,156
Likes
517
It is not "pre-emption."

Quite the opposite, as the municipality has to ask permission.

However, the "wide latitude" and "broad discretion" granted 351 individual chiefs, the excesses of which are generally ignored by the courts, create a sort of de facto "pre-emption."

There - beat you to it. LenS!
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Feb 22, 2008
Messages
12,017
Likes
1,378
Location
Western Mass
On a related note:

Cities can't ban guns from parks, Ohio Supreme Court rules
Friday, September 19, 2008

In a 4-3 decision, the court upheld an appeals court ruling that had struck down the city of Clyde's 2004 ban on guns in its parks because it conflicts with the state's multifaceted con- cealed-carry law. Clyde is southwest of Sandusky.

The ruling not only eliminates gun bans in Independence and Cleveland Heights parks but also threatens several Cleveland gun restrictions and all but kills further efforts by cities to trump or challenge the 4-year-old state law.

"The main impact is that it is going to restrict municipalities, city councils and so forth from restricting the rights of Ohio citizens who carry concealed weapons in public areas," said Patrick Lewis, a Cleveland attorney and member of the conservative Federalist Society, who was not involved in the case.

Chief Justice Thomas Moyer, who voted with the minority, was more direct, saying, "Implementation of the state statute strikes a severe blow to the underlying principles of self-government."

The question for the court was whether the concealed-carry law was meant by state legislators to be applied evenly statewide.

The court decided that it was, dismissing Clyde's argument that it was exercising "home rule," a state constitutional provision that allows municipalities to approve ordinances that conflict with state rules.

http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/122181307155850.xml&coll=2
 
J

Jose

Cities can't ban guns from parks, Ohio Supreme Court rules
Friday, September 19, 2008

This was a widely expected outcome. Only complete dumbasses or rabid anti-gunners thought it would go the other way.

BTW, our chief justice (and I use that term loosely) falls in the complete dumbass category. Time to elect his ass off the bench.

Not only does this make uniform application of our CCW laws a settled matter, it also does the same for ALL Ohio firearm laws. From now on there is zero doubt about the illegality of local gun control ordinances in conflict with state law.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jul 5, 2007
Messages
25
Likes
0
"He blamed this week's fatal shooting of a Philadelphia police officer on the state's lax gun laws that he said allowed the assailant to use an illegal weapon."

Duh?

You'd think even a liberal could figure out the silly syllogism.
 

Len-2A Training

Instructor
Instructor
NES Life Member
NES Member
Rating - 98.6%
71   1   0
Joined
Feb 26, 2005
Messages
54,913
Likes
15,750
Location
NH
It is not "pre-emption."

Quite the opposite, as the municipality has to ask permission.

However, the "wide latitude" and "broad discretion" granted 351 individual chiefs, the excesses of which are generally ignored by the courts, create a sort of de facto "pre-emption."

There - beat you to it. LenS!

Nope, you got the load, Scriv.

I try hard not to respond to these kind of topics anymore on NES.
 

RKG

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Dec 7, 2005
Messages
3,861
Likes
720
Location
Boston
It may (or may not, I suppose) be important to remember that decisions such as this have almost nothing to do with firearms or gun rights, but rather the allocation of legislative power between the state and the subordinate municipalities. The underlying issue could just as easily be something like banning mopeds (Block Island, several years ago), banning non-local automobiles (Martha's Vineyard, several years ago), rights of access of abutters to limited-access highways (I forget exactly where in Massachusetts, some years ago).
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Nov 14, 2006
Messages
596
Likes
34
PHP:
You'd think even a liberal could figure out the silly syllogism.

Syllogism assumes deductive reasoning. We're talkin' big city politicians and liberals - non sequitur. [grin]
 

Rob Boudrie

NES Member
Rating - 100%
6   0   0
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
42,905
Likes
24,544
It may (or may not, I suppose) be important to remember that decisions such as this have almost nothing to do with firearms or gun rights

Not really - it means the difference between r=f(state) and r=min(f(state),f(local)), where the later cannot exceed the former and may very well be less.
 

RKG

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Dec 7, 2005
Messages
3,861
Likes
720
Location
Boston
Not really - it means the difference between r=f(state) and r=min(f(state),f(local)), where the later cannot exceed the former and may very well be less.

I'm not entirely sure what message is intended by this. However, my point was not that such decisions do not have (at least potentiallyl) implications for gun owners, but rather that such decisions are not based on a judicial interpretation of gun rights (but rather municipal powers).
 

RKG

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Dec 7, 2005
Messages
3,861
Likes
720
Location
Boston
Got it - it's all matter of what "having almost nothing to do with" means.

You are quite right; my phraseology was quite imprecise.

My concern was that some folks seemed to be reading this decision (and others of like import) as evidence of a trend toward greater public acceptance of personal ownership of firearms. That trend may be real, but decisions such as this are not its product or its evidence.
 
J

Jose

You are quite right; my phraseology was quite imprecise.

My concern was that some folks seemed to be reading this decision (and others of like import) as evidence of a trend toward greater public acceptance of personal ownership of firearms. That trend may be real, but decisions such as this are not its product or its evidence.
Well, it IS a sign of such acceptance, as legislatures will no longer tolerate assaults on the possession and carrying of firearms by lesser governments within the state.

Pre-emption is applied to very few things, particularly in a state with home rule like OH. That it is applied to firearm regulation is significant, I think.
 
Top Bottom