Nutter defies '96 ruling by signing new gun laws


PDA






Animal Mother
April 11, 2008, 08:54 AM
Source: http://www.philly.com/dailynews/local/20080411_Nutter_defies__96_ruling_by_signing_new_gun_laws.html

Harkening back to the founding of America, Mayor Nutter and City Council yesterday challenged the state General Assembly on gun control.
Nutter swiftly signed into law five bills passed unanimously by Council, and compared them to the Declaration of Independence.

The state Supreme Court in a 1996 ruling declared that only the General Assembly has the power to regulate guns, tossing out the city's last effort at gun control.

"We have petitioned our government, but our pleas have been ignored," Nutter said. "We're going to make us independent of the violence that has been taking place in this city for far too long."

Nutter cited "bloody statistics": 74 homicides in the city so far this year, 56 committed with handguns and 1,734 people injured by guns last year.

The laws limit purchases of handguns to one a month unless the Police Department provides written authorization, make it a crime to not report a lost or stolen gun within 48 hours, allow police to confiscate guns from people considered a danger to themselves or others and ban semiautomatic weapons with clips that hold more than 10 rounds.

The gun-purchasing law will take six months to implement but the four others will be enforced immediately, Nutter said.

Councilman Darrell Clarke, who sued the state last year seeking the power to enforce local gun laws, said he expects to be back in court soon as a defendant in a lawsuit challenging the new city laws.

"We're beyond serious," Clarke said. "This is going to send a message that will probably reach national levels."

C. Scott Shields, a local attorney for the National Rifle Association, said the group would seek an injunction to stop the laws.

"It's sad they would do this because these are all patently unconstitutional. It's shocking," Shields said. "What if the city passed an ordinance saying you don't have the right to free speech within the city's limits?"

Clarke is hoping to provoke a re-hearing of the 1996 ruling by passing local gun laws and challenging the General Assembly.

David Kairys, a Temple University law professor and gun-control advocate, said that ruling left the city in a difficult position and that Nutter had acted responsibly.

"He comes into office and there's an intolerable level of gun violence," Kairys said. "He's responding to the violence."

Nutter signed the bills in front of three tables laden with handguns and rifles confiscated by police during crimes. He was joined by members of City Council, Police Commissioner Charles Ramsey and community activists.

Kim Stolfer, vice chairman of the Pennsylvania Sportsmen Association's legislative committee, called Nutter's action a crime and a political charade.

"I would like to see the mayor taken out in handcuffs for committing the crimes that they did," Stolfer said, adding that the city will rack up huge legal bills in a losing battle. "Who is going to pay for the lawsuit? Who is going to pay when they're wrong?"

Nutter brushed all that off.

"The wonderful thing about this country is that people can say whatever they want wherever they want," Nutter said. "That doesn't mean they're right or that it makes sense." *


So if your firearms are confiscated under this new law would the police be required to return them when the law is overturned, or would you be entitled to compensation? Could a person sue the City of Philadelphia for unlawful restraint of trade for restricting the sale of standard capacity magazines to citizens of Philadelphia and have a reasonable chance of winning?

If you enjoyed reading about "Nutter defies '96 ruling by signing new gun laws" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
foghornl
April 11, 2008, 09:16 AM
How about "Grand Theft/Larceny Under Color Of Law" or something like that?

Not sure how it should be worded, but essentially, Police, City, et al stole your property, presumably under some local law, but in opposition to State/Federal law.

p.s. remove the last 3 letters from Hizzoner Mayor Nut(ter)'s name, and you have all the explanation needed........

xjchief
April 11, 2008, 09:21 AM
Just another example of how government does what it wants, when it wants. The problem with our system now is the government doesn't have any fear at all of the people and it's rarely punished for breaking it's own laws.

Tom Connors
April 11, 2008, 09:23 AM
"We're going to make us independent of the violence that has been taking place in this city for far too long."


Hang on. Let me wipe my bloody nose from laughing so hard.

I think these bills will be overturned before the ink dries. They seem very vague and open to several interpertations. None of which will decrease crime.

"He comes into office and there's an intolerable level of gun violence," Kairys said. "He's responding to the violence."


No. Responding to the violence would be enacting mandatory, long term sentences for criminals involved in violent crimes.

Standing Wolf
April 11, 2008, 09:40 AM
The laws limit purchases of handguns to one a month unless the Police Department provides written authorization, make it a crime to not report a lost or stolen gun within 48 hours, allow police to confiscate guns from people considered a danger to themselves or others and ban semiautomatic weapons with clips that hold more than 10 rounds.

See? Reasonable compromise.

yhtomit
April 11, 2008, 09:41 AM
Wow.

Typical Nutter, a top-downer if ever there was one, and not just on guns -- and of the variety that likes to be *at* the top, doing the downing.

This stuff is too transparent to both responding to in detail. I would bother to explain to Nutter's email readers that this is one reason I look forward to leaving the city for good (except for future visits to friends) in 42 days, and spending many of the intervening days elsewhere as well, but as far as Nutter's camp goes, that's good news. Why would they want someone who'd vote against him around to do so? Better to drive people like me away, with high taxes and gun laws that favor (intentional) criminals.

Declaration of Independence, Ha -- maybe there's a category at the Pollies* for "Least Appropriate Posturing."

timothy


* There are no awards called The Pollies, but there should be. Little golden statue of a parrot, perched on a golden cow patty.

DKSuddeth
April 11, 2008, 10:08 AM
the only humorous thing about these 'laws' is finding the one judge in philly who will use every hoop and rollercoaster possible to find these laws don't violate the state laws.

Tom Connors
April 11, 2008, 10:17 AM
allow police to confiscate guns from people considered a danger to themselves or others

This ruling opens the door to a Nazi-like seizure of anyone's weapons. Who determines what is dangerous? The police? Attorney general?

Mr White
April 11, 2008, 10:37 AM
I wish PA could just cut Philly loose and let them become part of NJ where they belong. PA would be better for it and it couldn't make Jersey any worse.

Animal Mother
April 11, 2008, 10:39 AM
I wish PA could just cut Philly loose and let them become part of NJ where they belong. PA would be better for it and it couldn't make Jersey any worse.
+1
SFT

Robert Hairless
April 11, 2008, 10:40 AM
Nutter swiftly signed into law five bills passed unanimously by Council, and compared them to the Declaration of Independence.

I applaud that Nutter and the Philadelphia city council for declaring the city's independence from the United States of America.

Here and now I call for recognition of the independent Nation of Philadelphia. It must be respected by us all because its people should have the right of self determination.

Philadelphia does however have some property belonging to the United States of America and our country should either receive immediate compensation for that property or declare war on Philadelphia. Since Philadelphia's citizens have been disarmed, there should be no resistance. It could be a desirable aquisition as a U.S. territory after it is turned into one large parking lot. From what I see on "Parking Wars," the reality television program that depicts the ongoing war of Philadelphia's city administration against its citizens, the place could turn into a good moneymaker if anyone wants to go there.

Until then the U.S. should suspend all foreign aid programs to the Nation of Philadelphia. Its citizens can return to their agrarian roots or simply issue parking tickets to each other. The Nutter in charge of that country probably can handle the welfare of all the nutters who elected him.

In any case the borders to Philadelphia should be sealed immediately so that illegal immigrants from there cannot sneak into the U.S. at night and take our womenfolk.

El Tejon
April 11, 2008, 10:47 AM
Robert, can we declare them a terrorist state then?:D

Good lesson for THR: antis care nothing, absolutely nothing for the law, for the Constitution, for any of your rights. Be advised.:uhoh:

Tom Connors
April 11, 2008, 10:49 AM
I wish PA could just cut Philly loose and let them become part of NJ where they belong. PA would be better for it and it couldn't make Jersey any worse.

No, thank you.

We're in the process of our own tea party over here.

Perhaps Nutter doesn't know where he sits. He could probably see Independence Hall from his office in City Hall, though the Constitution means very little to him and city council. Says volumes of their respect of our country's history. Perhaps Nutter would like to bring the crown back to Pennsylvania as well.

King Jon is closing Monmouth State Park site of the historic Battle of Monmouth during the Revolutionary War and Washington's Crossing State Park site of General George Washington embankment and assembly of troops after crossing the Delaware River on December 25, 1776.

I think they both will get a intense history lesson shortly.

Tom

ZeSpectre
April 11, 2008, 10:53 AM
That article can be easily summed up.
"We lost in court and we don't like it so we're going to do what we please anyway and who's gonna stop us since we're the big dogs!"

This is exactly the sort of behavior that illustrates WHY we must have a "last resort" because if folks like hizzhoner won't obey the law then we're down to who can apply more force <sigh>.

geekWithA.45
April 11, 2008, 10:54 AM
Ya know, the Philadelphia political machine simply does not seem able to generate candidates capable or willing to engage their problems in any substantial way.

All they seem to be able to do is find people willing to espouse the same old tired stuff that never works, and never will.

And furthermore, the voters of Philadelphia can't seem to figure that out for themselves.

Nutter's big crime plan is to bring in the guy who was top cop for DC?

Yeah, that plan worked really well for DC.

You've gotta be kidding.

And this is Nutter's "Plan A", the plan he got elected on.

Ultimately, there comes a point when a people of a given place have long argued and consistently demonstrated that they are incompetent to handle their own affairs, nor responsible enough be granted access to the levers of power, I'm really tempted to start agreeing with them.

The problem, of course, is that when people, such as children or senile seniors are determined to be incompetent, they are not allowed to do things like drive, vote, own property or have access to arms.

Is this infantilized future *really* what the people of Philadelphia want? Because they're pretty damned close to getting it.

.

ozwyn
April 11, 2008, 12:00 PM
nutter indeed. not much more needs to be said.

Deanimator
April 11, 2008, 12:07 PM
Any cop who tries to enforce these laws could potentially lose everything he owns.

KNOWINGLY violating state law will almost certainly pierce his qualified immunity, leaving him open to suit as an individual.

There's a Norfolk, VA cop with a $100,000 suit hanging over her head for false arrest and a variety of other civil torts for falsely arresting a guy in violation of state preemption laws.

Anybody dumb enough to risk making his family homeless by enforcing these laws deserves whatever he gets. Too bad he'll be dragging the wife and kids down with him. But as they say in the Marine Corps, "Life is hard. It's a lot harder if you're stupid." In a similar situation, the Cleveland FOP were smart enough to tell the mayor to pound sand, and advised its members to ignore orders to enforce Cleveland's now invalid gun laws. We'll see how smart the members of the Philly PD are...

romma
April 11, 2008, 12:08 PM
Why is it that these people never go to jail?

The city should sue him personally for any costs involved with legal hassles brought on by his actions.

Old Fuff
April 11, 2008, 12:17 PM
Actually, I can see that the city’s aptly named Mayor Nutter has a good point. :what:

Clearly there is a problem. These guns are going out and killing innocent people and committing all kinds of “gun violence.” This needs to be stopped, and the answer is to go out and arrest all of these guns, try and convict them, and send the whole gang to the penitentiary. Make them serve a long term I say…!

There is a minor problem in that the slammer may be filled up with criminals, but the answer is to let them go to make room for the soon-to-be incarcerated guns.

Now someone might point out that it isn’t guns doing all of this violence, but rather criminals using guns. But that doesn’t matter. The ones that have been released will soon be up to no good, but we’ll all feel better knowing that the “gun violence” problem is gone and the community is truly safe.

Just like in Chicago and Washington D.C. :rolleyes:

Vang
April 11, 2008, 12:17 PM
4 out of 5 of the laws will be immediately overturned, but that doesn't make the council's or the mayor's actions illegal, it simply provides the reason why the people should throw them out on the street (not that they will).

Deanimator, no cop will ever enforce any of these laws before the courts have decided whether they violate state law (due to the waiting period before enforcement in all of the bills).



Nutter is actually a pretty good politician as they go in Philadelphia. This gun bill puts him in a corner because while nobody in the council thinks these bills are actually a good idea, they are a fantastic political tool. People in Philadelphia are really stupid and think we need gun legislation, but the city is restricted from passing any bill involving the lawful possession of firearms. So, the city tries to pass some bills, holds a press conference, denounces the state government, claims they are doing everything they can, and placates the idiots in city by doing something meaningless in practical terms. It's win-win for city politicians, and win-win for whatever lawyer gets to bill time on this matter, and only lose-lose for the people of Philadelphia and Pennsylvania for footing the bill.

RoadkingLarry
April 11, 2008, 12:46 PM
I wish PA could just cut Philly loose and let them become part of NJ where they belong. PA would be better for it and it couldn't make Jersey any worse.

Would that not double the average IQ of the political leadership in the rest of PA and NJ?

damien
April 11, 2008, 01:00 PM
If this isn't contempt of court, what is? What is the longest sentence someone can get for contempt of court in that jurisdiction?

Vang
April 11, 2008, 01:07 PM
I don't think you understand contempt of court. You could face contempt of court for something you do in an actual court proceeding.

Philadelphia's government has committed no criminal or civil offense by passing laws. Now, we should condemn them even more strongly if they knew that the laws were against state law, but that isn't necessarily true for all of the bills. Even if they did know, though, that doesn't make their actions a criminal or civil offense.

txgho1911
April 11, 2008, 01:48 PM
Maybe the state legislature can make some special rules for Philli.
Merge the PD to the SP and start arresting the city council for the stoopid attacks. Call the PC the city division.

Rugerlvr
April 11, 2008, 02:28 PM
Nutter signed the bills in front of three tables laden with handguns and rifles confiscated by police during crimes. He was joined by members of City Council, Police Commissioner Charles Ramsey and community activists.

And how many of those firearms were legally owned? How many of those would have been taken off the streets if the laws he just signed were enforced?

Here's my educated guess. ZERO.

mekender
April 11, 2008, 02:30 PM
PA has a clear preemption statute in regards to gun laws, the Philly .gov knows this and still chooses to enact laws that violate the state law... they are breaking the law criminally

Vang
April 11, 2008, 03:34 PM
What law provides criminal penalties for their actions? Also, do you have a document that demonstrates the knowledge of the council, or some proof that they know some or all of these bills are preempted? I think it's possible at least one isn't preempted, so clearly creative lawyers on the other side could have come up with more inventive defenses for the rest of the bills to at least give council a pretext for believing that the bills will stand up to review.

I'm being a pedant here because I read the Inquirer article and they found someone to quote who claimed that the actions of the council were illegal, and it only makes those on the side of constitutional rights look dumb to those who aren't.

phorvick
April 11, 2008, 03:37 PM
What law provides criminal penalties for their actions?

I would be very surprised if there is any criminality associated with the passage of laws of this nature. Rather than a criminal act, it is an invalid act.

It would be interesting though to see if an appelate court would have the fortitude to stick the individual politicians with their own legal fees due to their knowingly passing and attepmting to enforce invalid law.

Deanimator
April 11, 2008, 03:53 PM
Deanimator, no cop will ever enforce any of these laws before the courts have decided whether they violate state law (due to the waiting period before enforcement in all of the bills).
What makes this a matter of fact rather than conjecture?

What guarantee is there that the legality of the legislation is adjudicated before someone attempts to enforce it?

As I said, the Mayor of Cleveland has ordered the police to enforce Cleveland's clearly preempted AWB WITHOUT a prior court decision. What evidence is there that Nutter won't do the same thing once the legislation takes effect and before it's ruled on?

I think some cop's going to take it in the shorts hard before this is all over. I'm completely baffled as to why that Norfolk cop took one for the team, other than sheer ignorance, stupidity or malice. This is going to be WIDELY publicized. Any cop who claims ignorance in Philly won't have a snowball's chance in Basra of convincing a jury that he didn't know the law was preempted. I wonder how committed to gun control you have to be in order to be willing to be penniless and homeless to support it? But hey, anybody who enforces that nonsense is a criminal, and criminals do some pretty stupid things...

Deanimator
April 11, 2008, 04:10 PM
I would be very surprised if there is any criminality associated with the passage of laws of this nature. Rather than a criminal act, it is an invalid act.
However anybody who ENFORCES it is both a criminal and engaged in tortious acts. False arrest and attendent acts are BOTH crimes AND civil torts. I suppose that if the Philly PD went suficiently over the top in committing a false arrest that the individuals involved could be looking at a Federal civil rights prosecution, nevermind punishing lawsuits from which they in this instance have little defense.

takhtakaal
April 11, 2008, 04:17 PM
Lifted from a closed thread:

'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.

salthouse
April 11, 2008, 04:36 PM
Some interesting Phila statistics:
-Lost 25% of its population in the last 50 years.
-Has the highest homicide rate of the 10 largest cities in the US.
-45% High School Drop-out rate.
-Phila has the highest wage tax in America.
-Phila has the highest business taxes of all major cities in the US
-Since 2001, Phila has lost 4.5% of its jobs (over 30,000)

All of this obviously cannot be blamed on Mayor Nutter, but I find it very troubling that given all the problems in the city, that focusing on gun control has such a high priority. Maybe the economy, taxes, and the education system could be improved and crime would go down? It also seems that Phila has become and exporter of crime into the suburbs. Two LEOs from different depts both have told me in the past year that robberies near the major corridors in and out of Phila have been increasing and the perps seem to be largely from Phila and Camden.

takhtakaal
April 11, 2008, 05:12 PM
Links to these illegal laws:

“Temporary Removal of Firearms of Persons Posing a Risk of Imminent Personal Injury to Self or Others.”

http://webapps.phila.gov/council/detailreport/matter.aspx?key=8098

“Prohibited Possession, Sale and Transfer of Firearms by Persons Subject to Protection From Abuse Orders.”

http://webapps.phila.gov/council/detailreport/matter.aspx?key=8099

"Failure to Report Lost or Stolen Firearm"

http://webapps.phila.gov/council/detailreport/matter.aspx?key=8113

“Contraband Weapons, Accessories and Ammunition”

http://webapps.phila.gov/council/detailreport/matter.aspx?key=8114

“Straw and Multiple Handgun Purchase Reduction”

http://webapps.phila.gov/council/detailreport/matter.aspx?key=8116

2nd 41
April 11, 2008, 05:45 PM
One a Month. How about executing one criminal a month.

romma
April 11, 2008, 05:48 PM
What law provides criminal penalties for their actions?

How about unlawful restraint?

If one person gets arrested as a result of these illegal laws that are already superceded by existing State Laws,,, Why not Unlawful Restraint? Kidnapping? Civil rights violations on top of that.

Deanimator
April 11, 2008, 06:01 PM
How about unlawful restraint?
Assault and battery.

Theft.

takhtakaal
April 11, 2008, 06:37 PM
Petition up: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=355275

mekender
April 11, 2008, 07:57 PM
preemption law states:
General rule. No county, municipality or township may in any manner regulate the lawful ownership, possession, transfer or transportation of firearms, ammunition or ammuni*tion components when carried or transported for purposes not prohibited by the laws of this commonwealth.

Vader
April 11, 2008, 08:37 PM
Is Philly going to "secede" from the Union? :confused:
I want to buy first row tickets to watch the show :)

Dorryn
April 11, 2008, 08:43 PM
Is Philly going to "secede" from the Union?

If they do, it will be a short fight without the guns.

2nd 41
April 11, 2008, 09:26 PM
Phila and it's "feel good" laws.

VARifleman
April 11, 2008, 09:33 PM
Spelling is a virtue:

(v) A muzzle break or muzzle compensator.

buck00
April 11, 2008, 11:24 PM
:barf:

The Council finds that the use of offensive weapons as implements of

serious crime in Philadelphia represents an increasing danger to the lives and safety of all

the residents thereof. In particular, certain paramilitary assault weapons have become the

weapons of choice of those engaged in drug trafficking and other enterprises of organized

crime. The threat to the lives of Philadelphia police officers has become particularly acute

as a result of this on-going trend.

(b) The Council finds that it would be useful for law enforcement purposes to

enhance prohibitions of certain offensive weapons by making possession, manufacture,

transfer, delivery, sale and use of such weapons a violation of The Philadelphia Code,

subject to certain exceptions. In so doing the Council finds that it would be useful to

specifically include within the ban a variety of weapons and devices that are expressly

recognized as offensive weapons. And that they should include, but not be limited to,

paramilitary assault weapons, and the ammunition and accessories for such weapons, as

(a) "Assault weapon." The term includes the following:

(.1) Any semiautomatic pistol or semiautomatic or pump-action rifle

that is capable of accepting a detachable magazine and that also possesses any of the

following:

(i) If the firearm is a rifle, a pistol grip located at the rear of

the trigger.

(ii) If the firearm is a rifle, a stock in any configuration,

including, but not limited to, a thumbhole stock, a folding stock or a telescoping stock,

that allows the bearer of the firearm to grasp the firearm with the trigger hand such that

the web of the trigger hand, between the thumb and forefinger, can be placed below the

top of the external portion of the trigger during firing.

(iii) If the firearm is a pistol, a shoulder stock of any type or

configuration, including, but not limited to, a folding stock or a telescoping stock.

(iv) A barrel shroud.

(v) A muzzle break or muzzle compensator.

(vi) Any feature capable of functioning as a protruding grip

that can be held by the hand that is not the trigger hand.

(.2) Any pistol that is capable of accepting a detachable magazine at

any location outside of the pistol grip.

(.3) Any semiautomatic, center-fire rifle with a fixed magazine that

has the capacity to accept more than ten rounds of ammunition.

(.4) Any shotgun capable of accepting a detachable magazine.

(.5) Any shotgun with a revolving cylinder.

(.6) Any conversion kit or other combination of parts from which a

firearm described in paragraphs (.1) through (.5) can be assembled if the parts are in the

possession or under the control of any person.

(b) "Barrel shroud." A covering, other than a slide, that is attached to or that

substantially or completely encircles the barrel of a firearm and that allows the bearer of

the firearm to hold the barrel with the nonshooting hand while firing the firearm, without

burning that hand. The term does not include an extension of the stock along the bottom

of the barrel that does not substantially or completely encircle the barrel.

Big45
April 11, 2008, 11:55 PM
No person shall own, use, possess or transfer any contraband weapon, accessory or
ammunition; provided however, that any person who, prior to the effective date of this
Section, was legally in possession of a weapon or device prohibited by this Section shall
have thirty (30) days from the effective date of this Section to do any of the followingwithout being subject to prosecution hereunder;
(a) remove said contraband weapon, accessory and/or ammunition from
within the City limits of Philadelphia; or
(b) modify said contraband weapon, accessory and/or ammunition to either
render it permanently inoperable or to permanently make it a device no longer defined as
contraband under this Section; or
(c) surrender it to the Police Department.
(4) Exceptions.
City of Philadelphia
BILL NO. 080033 continued
City of Philadelphia - 5 -
(a) This Section shall not apply to employees of the Philadelphia Police
Department, and the Philadelphia Sheriff’s Department when conduct otherwise
prohibited by this Section is authorized by rules promulgated by such Department.

This is how it's going to go down everywhere eventually. And as much as this stuff makes my blood curdle, I am so ready to get it on.

modifiedbrowning
April 12, 2008, 12:31 AM
"Barrel shroud." A covering, other than a slide, that is attached to or that

substantially or completely encircles the barrel of a firearm and that allows the bearer of

the firearm to hold the barrel with the nonshooting hand while firing the firearm, without

burning that hand. The term does not include an extension of the stock along the bottom

of the barrel that does not substantially or completely encircle the barrel.
I thought the barrel shroud was the shoulder thing that goes up.

Hypnogator
April 12, 2008, 12:32 AM
A guy named Nutter signs five laws knowing that they contravene state law, and a guy named Bogus swears he can prove the 2nd Amendment applies only to organized militias. :eek: Man, you just can't make this stuff up! :neener::neener::neener:

geekWithA.45
April 12, 2008, 12:00 PM
PA Crimes and offenses (Title 18)

§ 5301. Official oppression.
A person acting or purporting to act in an official capacity or taking advantage of such actual or purported capacity commits a misdemeanor of the second degree if, knowing that his conduct is illegal, he:

subjects another to arrest, detention, search, seizure, mistreatment, dispossession, assessment, lien or other infringement of personal or property rights; or
denies or impedes another in the exercise or enjoyment of any right, privilege, power or immunity.

xjchief
April 12, 2008, 12:28 PM
PA Crimes and offenses (Title 18)

§ 5301. Official oppression.
A person acting or purporting to act in an official capacity or taking advantage of such actual or purported capacity commits a misdemeanor of the second degree if, knowing that his conduct is illegal, he:

subjects another to arrest, detention, search, seizure, mistreatment, dispossession, assessment, lien or other infringement of personal or property rights; or
denies or impedes another in the exercise or enjoyment of any right, privilege, power or immunity.

If there was any justice at all....;)

Tom Connors
April 12, 2008, 01:51 PM
I thought the barrel shroud was the shoulder thing that goes up.

LOL! That's tremendously funny!

2nd 41
April 12, 2008, 08:31 PM
Anyone remember Nutters suggestion of Stop & Frisk. I think that before he was elected. Full of ideas huh?

langenc
April 12, 2008, 08:55 PM
Councilman Darrell Clark should be "back in court" soon and then straight to JAIL.

romma
April 13, 2008, 06:28 PM
Isn't the typical Mantra "Ignorance is no excuse of the law"??

Than why is this Mayor so apparently ignorant?

mekender
April 13, 2008, 10:53 PM
oh, he knows the law, he just doesnt care

woodybrighton
April 14, 2008, 06:05 AM
I'm sure those laws will make murder a thing of the past.:rolleyes:
no badguy will be able to buy more than one gun a month not even from out of the city
dang no more than 10 shot magazines everybody knows it takes more than 10 rounds to kill someone:evil:

2nd 41
April 16, 2008, 08:55 AM
Ruled Illegal by Phila DA.
http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news_update/20080416_D_A__says_she_cannot_enforce_Philadelphia_s_new_gun_laws.html

Pilot
April 16, 2008, 09:06 AM
Ruled Illegal by Phila DA.


And Nutter knew this would happen all along. The laws were a cheap way for him to get publicity for "doing something" to stop gun violence. He can't blame the real cause of gun violence in Philly because his constituents would revoit. Minority gang bangers and the drug trade eminating from North and West Philly.

2nd 41
April 16, 2008, 11:01 AM
Ruled Illegal by Phila DA.

And Nutter knew this would happen all along. The laws were a cheap way for him to get publicity for "doing something" to shop gun violence. He can't blame the real cause of gun violence in Philly because his constituents would revoit. Minority gang bangers and the drug trade eminating from North and West Philly.
__________________
Phila is a great place for criminals. Most get a slap and probation. Armed robbery is suppose to be a 5 year mandatory sentence. Guys that held me up got 10 years probation.
I would be impressed with Mayor Nutter if he spoke of more prisons & enforcing current laws. Oh yeah... and ousting lenient Judges

stephpd
April 17, 2008, 07:17 AM
DA Lynn Abrams aka 'Jack McCoy' of Philly,before city council told them the laws were illegal and her office would not prosecute anyone arrested by these laws due to the probability of being sued. Leaves the cops out there hanging with the civil suit of false arrest.

And the 'stop and frisk' which is illegal on several levels still part of police procedures. Cops are going to be hit hard trying to enforce any of these 'laws'.

I live in the next town south of Philly and with a murder rate per capita higher then Philly. We have several councilmen wanting to suspend probable cause and institute such nonsense as 'stop and frisk'. They even admit to the paper that they know it's illegal but they don't care. Of course in this town you can seldom find a cop and they usually leave the high crime areas alone. Criminals killing criminals just makes less paper work and less of the courts time. Detectives that investigate the murders will tell the criminal who snitched them out and wonder why most people know what happened will not cooperate with police.BG back on the street in hours and threatening the witness. Lack of law enforcement and being related to the criminals leaves everything to be desired for our city police.

I remember one incident where a fight broke out everyone ran over to watch except the cop who told me someone should go check it out. I pointed to his badge and gun and asked if that wasn't HIS job. After a few minutes he went over there but did nothing.

Pilot
April 17, 2008, 11:56 AM
I live in the next town south of Philly and with a murder rate per capita higher then Philly.

Chester? :eek:

Vang
April 17, 2008, 05:47 PM
And the 'stop and frisk' which is illegal on several levels still part of police procedures. Cops are going to be hit hard trying to enforce any of these 'laws'."Stop and frisk" is perfectly legal. Under current supreme court precedent, as long as an officer has reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, he can search for weapons to ensure his safety. If this happens to turn up drugs, well, good luck claiming the officer didn't have reasonable suspicion to search.

Kim
April 17, 2008, 08:27 PM
Did any of you watch the Demo debate last night? Hillary actually brought up Nutter and she supported him as well Obama did to be able to pass local laws as they see fit. Obama actually went as so far as to say he believed the 2nd amendment did give and individual right BUT it could be curtailed (not sure the right word but he same meaning) by local laws. Get ahold of that is your mind for awhile. He could not come out and say he was againist the DC ban. Hilliary wants the assault weapon ban back. and so it goes. Do not ever believe them dems.

Deanimator
April 18, 2008, 05:21 PM
Under current supreme court precedent, as long as an officer has reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, he can search for weapons to ensure his safety.
And he'd BETTER be able to convincingly elucidate that suspicion if he stops and frisks me. And you'd BETTER believe he's going to have a chance to do so in court. I'm betting my lawyer could make his "reasonable suspicion" sound like the ravings of a madman or a power hungry thug. Then what's his is mine.

I may not be able to beat the ride. But he won't beat the judgement and bankruptcy.

If you enjoyed reading about "Nutter defies '96 ruling by signing new gun laws" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!