Pittsburgh Mayor Signs Law to Ban Use of AR-15s in City Limits

Status
Not open for further replies.

Aim1

member
Joined
Oct 24, 2015
Messages
2,310
From the article:


The Pittsburgh Gazette reported the gun control push was originally intended to ban possession of AR-15s and other commonly-owned semiautomatic firearms, but the city council toned down the controls in hopes of avoiding lawsuits. As signed, the gun control prevents anyone from discharging ARs and other commonly-owned semiautomatic firearms in public places within the city.

The Gazette noted it has been illegal to discharge a firearm in a public place in Pittsburgh since 1993.


https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/04/10/pittsburgh-mayor-signs-law-ban-use-ar-15s-city-limits/


Pittsburgh Mayor Signs Law to Ban Use of AR-15s in City Limits

AWR HAWKINS 10 Apr 20191,208

Pittsburgh Mayor Bill Peduto (D) signed gun control law on Tuesday to ban the use of AR-15s within city limits.


The ban is part of Peduto’s response to the October 27, 2018, attack in which 11 people were shot and killed in the Tree of Life Synagogue. That synagogue had no armed security at the time of the attack and Peduto responded to calls for armed security by shifting the conversation to gun control.
 
What kind of priorities do they have in Pittsburgh?

According to the FBI Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) table on homicides by weapon used, more people are killed each year by assailants using "personal weapons" than by assailants using rifles (and AR-15s are a subset of all rifles).

The FBI definition of "personal weapons" is fists, hands, feet, etc. and includes killing by pushing or shoving.

Bottom line: you are more likely to be killed in America by an unarmed assailant than by an assailant armed with an AR-15 rifle.
 
What kind of priorities do they have in Pittsburgh?

According to the FBI Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) table on homicides by weapon used, more people are killed each year by assailants using "personal weapons" than by assailants using rifles (and AR-15s are a subset of all rifles).

The FBI definition of "personal weapons" is fists, hands, feet, etc. and includes killing by pushing or shoving.

Bottom line: you are more likely to be killed in America by an unarmed assailant than by an assailant armed with an AR-15 rifle.

Yup. And if I recall the FBI has shown those results consistently for at least a decade (I expect much longer).

But the politicians and the sort of people who propose this kind of legislation aren't making rational decisions based on evidence.

The politicians are trying to show that they are Doing Something so they can get re-elected, without doing something SO drastic that it costs them more votes than they gain.

The sort of people who propose this kind of legislation are either well-meaning but completely ignorant fools who've never seen these statistics and would probably claim they were "fake news" if they did, or people who know darn well that the legislation won't impact the murder rate *but who want to get as many effective weapons out of our hands as possible because they don't want us to have power.*
 
That argument has no force outside of the gun choir. You don't walk into a house of worship and killed tens of people with your fists, Carl. More people are killed in industrial accidents, so what. It is the specific targeting of large numbers of people that make the point for the gun bans. The kind of argument not to ban because of industrial deaths or other crime related deaths has no real influence in the debate.
 
That argument has no force outside of the gun choir. You don't walk into a house of worship and killed tens of people with your fists, Carl. More people are killed in industrial accidents, so what. It is the specific targeting of large numbers of people that make the point for the gun bans. The kind of argument not to ban because of industrial deaths or other crime related deaths has no real influence in the debate.
The problem is that ARs aren't the only weapon capable of these crimes. I recall listening to one survivor of a school shooting (I wish I could recall specifics, but only heard part of the story) talking of hiding, listening to the shooter come down a hallway with a repeating shotgun, alternately firing and loading. No one stopped him while he was reloading (too busy running I presume) and, fortunatly, the survivor was able to surprise the shooter as he entered his room and stop it. That's a good thing, but the damage done was still done.
The mentality that the solution is to "BAN THE EVILGUN" is flawed because the troubled people who commit these crimes will not be stopped because they CAN'T buy a Bushmaster, they will simply choose another weapon.
 
Don't sell this kind of move short. It'll please its intended audience. Those people won't know that it's already illegal to shoot inside city limits, and they'll be glad their politicians are to use an expression so often found on their lips "are finally doing something." The mere fact that it has no practical value won't mean a thing to them. We're looking at an audience where sentiment is always more important than practical results.

We might suggest that a person would do better to look to the actual results of a law, but that would be to misunderstand the thinking of an entire class of people. Look at it this way: your car doesn't run. Do you want to hear an in depth analysis of something from inside your transmission that you couldn't picture anyway? No, you just want it fixed. These people feel the same way about mass shootings, and they have plenty of politicians and media people supporting them who assure them they can fix the problem.

What do we have to offer in place of all this feel good? Well, we can talk about rights. The problem with that is scratch the surface of rights and you have responsibilities. These people don't want responsibilities. They want somebody to fix their problems and tell them they can feel good.
 
Isn't it already illegal to discharge any firearm in public within city limits? This seems redundantly redundant, and nothing more than posturing to say, "Look at us! We stood up against the evil black rifle!"

YUP we did somptin'
 
Don't sell this kind of move short. It'll please its intended audience. Those people won't know that it's already illegal to shoot inside city limits, and they'll be glad their politicians are to use an expression so often found on their lips "are finally doing something." The mere fact that it has no practical value won't mean a thing to them. We're looking at an audience where sentiment is always more important than practical results.
It's called "virtue signalling." Lots of that is done on the pro-gun side as well. People have made whole lucrative careers out of result-free virtue signalling.
 
It's called "virtue signalling." Lots of that is done on the pro-gun side as well. People have made whole lucrative careers out of result-free virtue signalling.
In Pennsylvania, it's called a "crime" and a "civil tort" just as it is in Ohio.

It'll be funny to see if any cop is dumb enough to sit on Peduto's limb and saw away at the tree side.

When Cleveland passed a similar law, the local police union advised its members to NOT enforce the law, lest they be PERSONALLY liable for violating someone's rights by enforcing a FACIALLY invalid law.

Any Pittsburgh cop who enforces ANY of this should be hammered into the ground like a tent peg in civil court.
 
Any Pittsburgh cop who enforces ANY of this should be hammered into the ground like a tent peg in civil court.
You're missing the point. As revised, the city ordinance makes illegal what was already illegal -- namely the discharge of a firearm in public within the city limits. Whether police enforce the old law or the new law, the result is exactly the same. BTW, there's nothing unique in this -- most towns and cities have ordinances against public discharges of firearms. And the police don't face any adverse consequences in enforcing them.

"Virtue signalling" is defined as a meaningless gesture designed to engender a favorable emotional response. That fits the current Pittsburgh situation exactly.

Also, let's keep this whole thing in perspective. The Pittsburgh city council backing off its original proposal has been a victory for the pro-gun side.
 
Last edited:
You're missing the point. As revised, the city ordinance makes illegal what was already illegal -- namely the discharge of a firearm in public within the city limits. Whether police enforce the old law or the new law, the result is exactly the same. BTW, there's nothing unique in this -- most towns and cities have ordinances against public discharges of firearms. And the police don't face any adverse consequences in enforcing them.

"Virtue signalling" is defined as a meaningless gesture designed to engender a favorable emotional response. That fits the current Pittsburgh situation exactly.

Also, let's keep this whole thing in perspective. The Pittsburgh city council backing off its original proposal has been a victory for the pro-gun side.
They shouldn't be allowed to get away with ANY of it. It's the Rheinland. Next comes the Sudetenland.
 
They shouldn't be allowed to get away with ANY of it. It's the Rheinland. Next comes the Sudetenland.
Ordinances barring the discharge of firearms within city limits are par for the course. (With exceptions, of course, for lawful defensive uses.) This is not controversial and was in fact approved by Scalia in the Heller case.
 
Ordinances barring the discharge of firearms within city limits are par for the course. (With exceptions, of course, for lawful defensive uses.) This is not controversial and was in fact approved by Scalia in the Heller case.
Under Pennsylvania law it's ILLEGAL and FACIALLY NULL AND VOID.

What's the plan? Let this one slide in hopes that they'll ban handguns later?
 
I emailed the PA attorney general expressing my desire to see the mayor and council charged with violating preemption. I also emailed my state representative about the mayor’s and council’s illegal actions and total and unapologetic disregard for PA law.
 
I emailed the PA attorney general expressing my desire to see the mayor and council charged with violating preemption.
I doubt that a local ordinance on the discharge of firearms within the city limits violates preemption. Virginia has state preemption of gun laws (for example, there can be no local restrictions on the purchase of firearms) and yet there are the usual local ordinances regarding the discharge of firearms within city limits. You have to actually read the Pennsylvania preemption statute.
 
I doubt that a local ordinance on the discharge of firearms within the city limits violates preemption. Virginia has state preemption of gun laws (for example, there can be no local restrictions on the purchase of firearms) and yet there are the usual local ordinances regarding the discharge of firearms within city limits. You have to actually read the Pennsylvania preemption statute.

The Pittsburgh law does not just restrict the discharge of firearms within city limits which, I agree, a semi-defensible argument may be made that such a restriction does not undermine preemption. I have not gotten my hands on the text of the new legislation. However, it is reported that:

“The Pittsburgh legislation restricts military-style assault weapons like the AR-15 rifle authorities say was used in the synagogue attack. It also bans most uses of armor-piercing ammunition and high-capacity magazines, and allows the temporary seizure of guns from people who are determined to be a danger to themselves or others.”

Full Article: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.mcall.com/news/pennsylvania/mc-nws-pa-pittsburgh-mayor-gun-charges-blocked-20190412-lj5kewegbjfdnnfrkjjbnfbymm-story.html?outputType=amp

I argue that limiting magazine capacity, restricting firearm types, and restricting ammunition types is a clear and blatant violation of preemption. Specifically, PA preemption states that “No county, municipality or township may in any manner regulate the lawful ownership, possession, transfer or transportation of firearms, ammunition or ammunition components when carried or transported for purposes not prohibited by the laws of this Commonwealth.” See the link below for full text:

https://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/LI/CT/HTM/18/00.061.020.000..HTM

Furthermore, the district attorney warned the mayor and council before the legislation’s passage that enacting sic legislation could result in criminal charges for having violated preemption. Apparently, the DA is now saying that he will only consider filing charges against the mayor and/or council when 1) the laws go into effect and 2) someone is cited for having violated the law.
 
From one of the cited articles:

"While one of the Pittsburgh bills originally included an outright ban on assault weapons, the revised measure bars the “use” of assault weapons in public places."

It seems to me that "use" of a firearm means discharge of that firearm. What else could "use" be? Brandishing? That too could be covered by local ordinance without running afoul of state preemption. The state is concerned with "ownership, possession, transfer or transportation." I don't see "use" among those four things.
 
From one of the cited articles:

"While one of the Pittsburgh bills originally included an outright ban on assault weapons, the revised measure bars the “use” of assault weapons in public places."

It seems to me that "use" of a firearm means discharge of that firearm. What else could "use" be? Brandishing? That too could be covered by local ordinance without running afoul of state preemption. The state is concerned with "ownership, possession, transfer or transportation." I don't see "use" among those four things.
How about if I "use" it to defend myself from a home invasion gang? Is it ok to prosecute me THEN?

I'm not a big enough fool to impute benign motives to malicious sociopaths like Mayor.
 
There is another facet to this. It is now illegal to possess a loaded ar15 in public. This is probably a direct result of a rally that was held in protest of the proposed legislation. Many people were oc'ing ar's at the rally.
the mayor is also working with the governor to change preemption laws in the state
They are not done yet. Also the mayor has recieved campaign contributions from Bloomberg.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top