NRA Wins Restraining Order Against Philadelphia

GOAL

NES Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2007
Messages
541
Likes
1,747
Feedback: 0 / 0 / 0
http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/InTheNews.aspx?ID=10925

NRA Wins Restraining Order Against Philadelphia
City Barred from Enforcing Illegal Gun Control Measures


Fairfax, VA-In the first round of the latest battle over Pennsylvania’s firearm preemption law, the National Rifle Association (NRA) was handed a victory over the City of Philadelphia, as a Philadelphia County court granted NRA’s motion for a temporary restraining order against the city’s newest gun control regulations.

A judge has ruled that Philadelphia is barred from enforcing the ordinances and moving forward on promulgating regulations. The City opposed the injunction, saying they believed that the ordinances are both necessary and constitutional.

District Attorney Lynne Abraham previously advised Philadelphia’s city council and mayor that their gun control proposals were unconstitutional, but the city pressed on, defying the state’s firearm preemption law in their third attempt to circumvent the Pennsylvania legislature.

“On behalf of the hundreds of thousands of NRA members in Pennsylvania who are frustrated by Philadelphia’s mayor and city council, we are pleased with today’s ruling,” said Chris W. Cox, NRA’s chief lobbyist. “Philadelphia’s politicians have made it clear they care nothing for the rule of law or the state's constitution. They are going to have to learn, one way or another, that state law applies to them, too.”

A hearing on the permanent injunction is scheduled for April 28th.

Click here to view the temporary restraining order.
 
All those whining about how the NRA "doesn't do anything except ask for more money," take notice.
 
Not long ago I posted about how proud I was to be part of the NRA after seeing the brady bozo website. Ya, multiply that by about 20. Join the NRA, Join GOAL.
 
All those whining about how the NRA "doesn't do anything except ask for more money," take notice.

I'm not whining, mind you (I support the NRA %100), but it was such a flagrant
violation of the PA Constitution that even a 1st year law student could have won an injunction.

I fully understand the NRA's strategy in this kind of thing (they'll take on cases where the atmosphere is more positive rather than waste funds, time and effort on lost causes like MA).

They did good... but, they need to take on a few more risks and uncertainties
rather than the slam dunk cases.

They sure as hell weren't in our court for the Parker/Heller - DC case.
 
Philly has always been a hotbed of anti gun insurgency. Until a few years ago, it was the only place in PA (being the only "city of the first class") where carry permits were discretionary rather than shall issue. The state changed the law granting a shall issue exemption to cities of the first class, so the entire state is now shall issue.
 
What exactly was Philly trying to do?


Bill 080017
Bill 080018
Bill 080032-A <-- Repeat Offender! LOL... I am trying to follow the logic, and this bill is HORRIBLE!
Bill 080033 <-- Check this one!
Bill 080035


From Bill 080032-A:
(3) Repeat Offenders. Any person who commits, on more than one occasion, a violation
of this Section, shall be guilty of a separate offense of Repeat Violation, and for each
such Repeat Violation, shall be subject to a fine of not more than one thousand nine
hundred dollars ($1,900) for any violation committed in 2008, and not more than two
thousand dollars ($2,000) for any violation committed in 2009 or thereafter, or
imprisonment for not more than ninety (90) days, or both. A person shall be guilty of a
Repeat Violation regardless whether the second or subsequent violation occurs before or
after a judicial finding of a first or previous violation. Each violation, after the first, shall
constitute a separate Repeat Violation offense.


First time I have ever heard the term "Assault Pistol" (Bill 080033)!
Effing TOOLS! [thinking]
 
Last edited:
Philly

Philly has always been a hotbed of anti gun insurgency. Until a few years ago, it was the only place in PA (being the only "city of the first class") where carry permits were discretionary rather than shall issue. The state changed the law granting a shall issue exemption to cities of the first class, so the entire state is now shall issue.
******
I can smell the Brady Bunch all over these bills. They must have been coached by them.
 
NRA comes up short?

I'm not whining, mind you (I support the NRA %100), but it was such a flagrant
violation of the PA Constitution that even a 1st year law student could have won an injunction.

I fully understand the NRA's strategy in this kind of thing (they'll take on cases where the atmosphere is more positive rather than waste funds, time and effort on lost causes like MA).

They did good... but, they need to take on a few more risks and uncertainties
rather than the slam dunk cases.

They sure as hell weren't in our court for the Parker/Heller - DC case.

My gut reaction is to agree BUT, I am a relative newbie to the political environment (or returning prodigal son depending on how you look at it) so I will ask you to explain how you think that the NRA dropped the ball w/respect to Parker/Heller. While I'm familiar with the case (heard most of the broadcast testimony on TV and podcast- thank you Gun Talk) but I am unfamiliar with the NRA's role or lack thereof in the case.

Please advise. [thinking]
 
What exactly was Philly trying to do?

Pass local firearms ordinances in violation of the state law preempting local control of the issue. I.e., Philly intentionally passed local laws that state law forbids. You probably know that - so what were they trying to do? Test their power. Raise the issue. Make a press case out of a court case.

This is a big deal to watch - preemption laws are one of the things keeping states like PA (and even NH) from turning into the patchwork of local law and evolving encroachments on civil liberties that Illinois has become.
 
I fully understand the NRA's strategy in this kind of thing (they'll take on cases where the atmosphere is more positive rather than waste funds, time and effort on lost causes like MA).

I think part of their agenda should take place in MA b/c this is one of a few places where gun control crap gets it's start. Nip it in the bud here and it might be better as a whole. BUT with such low membership here we "get what we pay for".
 
My gut reaction is to agree BUT, I am a relative newbie to the political environment (or returning prodigal son depending on how you look at it) so I will ask you to explain how you think that the NRA dropped the ball w/respect to Parker/Heller. While I'm familiar with the case (heard most of the broadcast testimony on TV and podcast- thank you Gun Talk) but I am unfamiliar with the NRA's role or lack thereof in the case.

Please advise. [thinking]

They purposely (at least myself and many others think so), attempted to derail the case at least twice.

First time was when they had unsuccessfully filed a "kitchen sink" lawsuit that wasn't as focused as the Parker/Heller plaintiffs was.

When the court denied hearing the case, they sought to have it consolidated with the Parker/Heller case which would have complicated an otherwise perfect argument in favor of overturning the DC handgun ban (and affirming the individuals right to keep and bear arms).

The second time they nearly killed Parker/Heller was by trying to pass a bill through Congress (twice), that would have repealed the ban (and rendered the case moot).

The whole nitty-gritty here...

http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/a_shot_at_the_second_amendment
 
BUT with such low membership here we "get what we pay for".

That's a shitty way of thinking IMO. Yes MA NRA membership is low, but we MA residents who are members get little to nothing in return. The NRA has an OBLIGATION to ALL its members even in localities and states where there are less members than others. It might not be a popular thing to say on this board, but as far as I'm concerned my yearly NRA dues is no different than throwing $$ down the toilet. I'll remain a memeber and continue to pay because they do work on the national level which trickles down to, I suppose some benefit to us but not much.
 
Last edited:
While reading this, drinking from my NRA mug, i can't help but wonder, is this not the same as a STATE, like lets say... MA, passing gun laws that contradict or are unconstitutional by the US Constitution and Federal laws?

Good job by the NRA though...

One thing I am noticing in this years debates for president is that he second is comming up a lot... much more so then before... and i think that says something about the people of this country opening their eyes and realizing that the banning of guns and restrictive gun control laws have only hurt the good people, not the criminals.

The problem has always been that the gun grabbers have had a louder voice... but i am seeing that change... and the supporters of the second are really starting to speak up and take this nation back... even if only by one law at a time.
 
While reading this, drinking from my NRA mug, i can't help but wonder, is this not the same as a STATE, like lets say... MA, passing gun laws that contradict or are unconstitutional by the US Constitution and Federal laws?

Technically ... yes.

But, until the 2nd amendment is incorporated with the 14th amendment, states are pretty much free to pass whatever gun control legislation they choose (within the scope of their own state constitutions).

That's one of the reasons a win with Heller is so important.

Once the SCOTUS rules (hopefully), that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, we can go about the task of applying the affirmation to the states.

It's going to take a few years for that to happen, but given the current legislature and courts in this state, it's really the only chance we have.
 
That's a shitty way of thinking IMO. Yes MA NRA membership is low, but we MA residents who are members get little to nothing in return. The NRA has an OBLIGATION to ALL its members even in localities and states where there are less members than others. It might not be a popular thing to say on this board, but as far as I'm concerned my yearly NRA dues is no different than throwing $$ down the toilet. I'll remain a memeber and continue to pay because they do work on the national level which trickles down to, I suppose some benefit to us but not much.

The NRA's main concern is federal not state or local. Your money is far from a waste.
 
So what are they meddling in PA for?[rolleyes]

They're in PA because PA is one of those states where they CAN make a
noticeable difference- because the overwhelming majority of districts in the
state are still pro gun.

I hate this cliche, but I think it's appropriate... "An ounce of prevention is worth
a pound of cure". If philadumpia's influence can be limited in some way, it
will prevent the disease from spreading to the rest of the state.


-Mike
 
While reading this, drinking from my NRA mug, i can't help but wonder, is this not the same as a STATE, like lets say... MA, passing gun laws that contradict or are unconstitutional by the US Constitution and Federal laws?

Not to start another pedantic thread, but "preemption" (which is what is involved in Philadelphia) comes in two flavors:

"Conflict preemption" is when the lesser government passes a law that conflicts with the law passed by the higher authority. There is no conflict between any state-enacted firearms law and the federal Constitution, at least unless and until the Second Amendment has been judicially incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment.

"Displacement preremption" is when the lesser government law is not necessarily in conflict with the higher government law, but the higher government has explicitly or implicitly determined to "occupy the field." Where it has "occupied the field," then its non-actions are as binding on the lesser government as its actions. At the moment, there is no pending interpretation of the United States constitution as purporting to occupy the field of firearms regulation or render it an exclusively federal area (as there is, for instance, for interstate commerce).

In the Philadelphia case, both are implicated, at least as I understand matters. In part, apparently the state law explicitly or implicitly "occupies the field" of firearms regulation in Pennsylvania, and therefore displaces any city or town legislation on the subject. In addition, I gather that there in an express preemption provision, which tells cities and states not to legislate in this area.

Literally, whole books (heavy ones, too) have been written on the subject of preemption. As a general matter, it is pretty boring stuff; a reloading manual makes better reading.
 
They're in PA because PA is one of those states where they CAN make a
noticeable difference- because the overwhelming majority of districts in the
state are still pro gun.

I hate this cliche, but I think it's appropriate... "An ounce of prevention is worth
a pound of cure". If philadumpia's influence can be limited in some way, it
will prevent the disease from spreading to the rest of the state.


-Mike

They may also be "meddling" in Pennsylvania because there is a Democratic primary coming up, and anything that heightens the issue of "gun control," on which the Dems generally seek the nearest shelter and wish to avoid at all costs, can be politically helpful. Particularly, when it reinforces, as this does, the importance of being able to keep firearms to the ordinary folk of Pennsylvania.
 
jhblaze1 you have quite the chip on your shoulder for a noob.[wink]

+1 for drgrant by the way.

I sure do!... I hate bullshit in all it's flavors. Like I said I support the NRA and will continue to do so but if I'm ever sitting on some extra money and am feeling charitable you can bet your ass it's going to GOAL long before I'd even consider giving to the NRA.
 
I sure do!... I hate bullshit in all it's flavors. Like I said I support the NRA and will continue to do so but if I'm ever sitting on some extra money and am feeling charitable you can bet your ass it's going to GOAL long before I'd even consider giving to the NRA.

Agreed.
 
They may also be "meddling" in Pennsylvania because there is a Democratic primary coming up, and anything that heightens the issue of "gun control," on which the Dems generally seek the nearest shelter and wish to avoid at all costs, can be politically helpful. Particularly, when it reinforces, as this does, the importance of being able to keep firearms to the ordinary folk of Pennsylvania.

Especially as PA is considered Hillary's "last stand" primary. If she can't carry it, she's toast.
 
They're in PA because PA is one of those states where they CAN make a
noticeable difference- because the overwhelming majority of districts in the
state are still pro gun.

I hate this cliche, but I think it's appropriate... "An ounce of prevention is worth
a pound of cure". If philadumpia's influence can be limited in some way, it
will prevent the disease from spreading to the rest of the state.


-Mike

Good point but I was resonding to Mikey's post that the NRA's concern is national not local or state. But there they are in PA (doing good work I might add). My point is that the NRA (while yes they do a lot of good things on the national level) should not be favoring some state over others just because they have higher membership rates. Maybe NRA membership is so low in MA because no one in MA owns guns anymore. Maybe they just figure it's a lost cause. Maybe if the NRA helped effect some change in the MA laws more gun owners would eventually translate to more NRA memebers.

I just think any organization trying to make real change should work in the places that are in the most need of that change rather than places like PA which is a gun owner's paradise compared to this abortion of a state.


Another problem I have with the NRA is that it has no problem spending god only knows how much $$ printing up there never ending onslaught of junk mail and "please give us more money" mail. Why not spend that money on something less wasteful?
 
Like I said I support the NRA and will continue to do so but if I'm ever sitting on some extra money and am feeling charitable you can bet your ass it's going to GOAL long before I'd even consider giving to the NRA.

Apparently you are unaware that GOAL is an NRA-affiliated club.

Or that NRA has been hammering the whores in New Orleans who stole peoples' property, denied doing it and then obstructed the return of that property.

A state that keeps re-electing Kennedy and Kerry is a poor investment, so NRA allocates its resources to more productive areas.
 
Apparently you are unaware that GOAL is an NRA-affiliated club.

Or that NRA has been hammering the whores in New Orleans who stole peoples' property, denied doing it and then obstructed the return of that property.

A state that keeps re-electing Kennedy and Kerry is a poor investment, so NRA allocates its resources to more productive areas.

No, I wasn't unaware of any of that. Maybe a MA resident's membership in the NRA is reciprocally a poor investment though.

Look, I'm not arguing that the NRA is a total waste for MA folks otherwise I would tear up my card and never re-up. I don't believe that. I would like to see them make an effort in MA rather then write us off altogether. I guess that makes me the bad guy.
 
Look, I'm not arguing that the NRA is a total waste for MA folks otherwise I would tear up my card and never re-up. I don't believe that. I would like to see them make an effort in MA rather then write us off altogether. I guess that makes me the bad guy.

No, you're not a bad guy, you're just not being realistic in the context of the way the NRA operates. [wink]

I think the NRA's perspective is that there are plenty of other battles to fight that are still winnable. MA is basically gone, from their POV, and likely from more than one angle, and they'd probably be right. The main issue in MA is that "gun politics" are largely rendered irrelevant in state politics. The standard NRA methods of waging war are cut off at the pass.

To summarize:

-MA SJC has declared MA's RKBA is meaningless. Doesn't help us much in state courts. Not to mention many of the courts in this state are stacked against us with liberal hack judges. This limits the efficacy of trying to wage legal battles at the state level, say against places like Boston, Brookline, etc.

-MA has like less than 300K worth of gun owners. (there might be more than that, but it would be a safe bet that the fudds with expired FID cards aren't getting out to vote on gun issues. )

-MA's government is nearly completely corrupt- If the pols won't obey the voters in regards to a simple .3 reduction in taxes, then a radical change in gun laws is likely out of the question, even if the voters demanded it. This makes working inside the system difficult and very uncertain- the problem in MA government is you can still follow all the rules, get all the votes and still lose. Something is f**ked up wtih that. The system is broken here.

Someone might posit... "Well, why does GOAL even try, then?" The reason is, GOAL approaches issues from a different angle. They see small opportunities legislatively to make a difference and seize them. The NRA doesn't really deal in that brand of warfare as well as GOAL does. Additionally here, the gun laws and politics are orders of magnitude more complicated than in most other states. In other states most gun laws can fit on a few sheets of paper. MA it's probably a damned phone book. (For example, how thick is ron glidden's book?)

I wish the NRA would be more involved here, too, but I think that's wishful thinking. I also think them spending too much resources here is a waste when they can help states like PA from going off the rails and becoming more corrupt. If Philadumpia goes off the rails the disease could leak out and destroy the rest of the state. The cost/benefit proposition on saving PA is very good compared to here. They have a high probability of succeeding and a large number of gun owners will reap a benefit from that.

I do wish they would be more active in MA WRT issues that likely ARE winnable, such as the MA ag's BS wrt mail order ammo vendors and the like. There might also be a strategy that could be waged against the AG's handgun regs, etc. I get the impression though, that individuals at the NRA feel that these fights are not viable for them for whatever reason. I think part of it is they may also fear that MA would just legislatively nullify any possible legal victory.

I'm not saying the NRA is perfect, that's for sure. If someone told me "well, I'll keep my NRA membership but I am going to give more money to GOAL, SAF, GOA, JPFO, etc... I'd be in complete agreement with that.

-Mike
 
Last edited:

When I'm looking for an objective view of the NRA, the first place I look is the American Bar Association Journal. [grin]

The differences between Gura (for Heller) and the NRA were over tactics and probability of success.

There was(?is) serious fear that a bad for RKBA decision would be impossible to correct. Certainly, before Alioto replaced Sandra Day a bad decision was likely. When Parker won at the DC Appeals level, nobody was betting the farm on Anthony Kennedy support.

Even now, we don't know what 5 of the Justices will deem to be "reasonable regulations".

The NRA harbors much institutional cautiousness. The Bob Ricker fantasy that the NRA wants gun control so that it can raise money and stay in business should reside with the 9/11 Truthers.
 
Back
Top Bottom