Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Philadelphia Challenges NRA's Challenge of New Gun Laws

Discussion in 'Legal' started by Winchester 73, Apr 30, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Winchester 73

    Winchester 73 member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    1,576
    Location:
    Miami,Florida
    2008
    City Challenges NRA's Challenge Of New Gun Laws


    http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/cityhall/CIty_Challenges_NRAs_Challenge_Of_New_Gun_Laws.html

    Jessica Griffin/Daily News City Solicitor Shelley Smith today challenged in court the standing of the National Rifle Association to sue Philadelphia for a package of five gun-control laws passed by City Council on April 10 and signed immediately into law by Mayor Nutter. Smith told PhillyClout her preliminary objections, filed with Common Pleas Court Judge Jane Cutler Greenspan, note that the NRA challenges the legality of the gun control laws but doesn't "allege an actual injury." The NRA sued on behalf of its members in the city, two firearm organizations, two gun shops and four firearm owners.

    "They don't deal specifically with the legal injury as it relates to each of the separate ordinances," Smith said. "You have to look at what every ordinance prohibits and then figure out if any of the plaintiffs can allege any specific injury." The local laws limit handgun purchases to one a month, make it a crime to not report a lost or stolen gun within 48 hours, allow police to confiscate guns with a judge's approval from people considered a danger to themselves or others, prohibit gun possession by people subject to protection from abuse orders, and ban semiautomatic weapons with clips that hold 10 or more rounds.

    Greenspan on April 17 approved the NRA's request for a temporary restraining order to keep the city from enforcing the new laws. She will hold a hearing on May 19 to consider the group's request for a permanent injunction. The NRA says the laws conflict with a 1996 state Supreme Court ruling that only the state can regulate guns. Smith says the city laws do not conflict with that ruling. Further complicating matters, Police Commissioner Charles Ramsey had vowed to enforce the local laws before the restraining order but District Attorney Lynne Abraham said she would not prosecute anyone arrested for violating them.
     
  2. Standing Wolf

    Standing Wolf Member in memoriam

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    24,041
    Location:
    Idahohoho, the jolliest state
    Your civil rights are gone, but there's no injury.

    Yeah. Right. Even Stalin might choke on what passes for "logic" in leftist extremist circles.
     
  3. TexasRifleman

    TexasRifleman Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2003
    Messages:
    18,302
    Location:
    Ft. Worth
    So now violating the Bill of Rights is not injurious?

    They should try to keep parts of town from being able to vote or buy a newspaper and see what that gets them.
     
  4. K-Romulus

    K-Romulus Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2003
    Messages:
    1,146
    Location:
    Somewhere in Monkey County, MD
    If the NAACP can successfully assert "standing" to sue Glock, Inc. because "a lot of black people are killed BY :rolleyes: Glock pistols," then I don't see why the NRA can't represent legal gun owners who are facing jail time under the Philly laws.
     
  5. romma

    romma Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2005
    Messages:
    3,208
    Location:
    Southeastern,CT
    Nevermind the fact that law abiding businesses will be run out of business by the "one a month nonsense"...
     
  6. MechAg94

    MechAg94 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2005
    Messages:
    4,748
    Is this right? Is this saying that a battered wife who gets a restraining order against an ex-husband can't own a gun? I assume it must be a mistake.
     
  7. Animal Mother

    Animal Mother Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2007
    Messages:
    569
    Location:
    Southeast
    I know that D.C. has been able to keep its ban out of the courts for years based on the same logic of not having standing.

    Does this mean that despite the PA's State AG stating the law was unconstitutional, that Philadelphia can keep its city restrictions in place for years so long as no one is arrested under the law?

    This seems like it would only keep the law abiding businesses and citizens from exercising their rights.

    If this is the case it seems like will be a very difficult and lengthy process to overturn local city bans that could pop up nationwide, despite preemption. This is especially true if the city intentionally plays dirty by passing ordinances but not enforcing them, thereby keeping lawful people and businesses owning or operating otherwise legal firearms.

    Any legal eagles care to weigh in?
     
  8. IllHunter

    IllHunter Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2006
    Messages:
    474
    Location:
    ChicagoLand
    What about magazine ban?

    The law would instantly make criminal of anyone possessing a magazine with more than 10 round capacity. There must be an an NRA member in Philly with a Glock 17 etc. If the law were constitutional, it would make posession illegal, not dependant on being caught with or carrying.
     
  9. K-Romulus

    K-Romulus Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2003
    Messages:
    1,146
    Location:
    Somewhere in Monkey County, MD
    The magazine ban somewhat mirrors the New jersey ban: up to 16-rounders are allowed, BUT internal magazines are limited to 10 rounds :confused:.

    Well, what did you expect from that brain trust known as the Phila. City Council?! :rolleyes:

    http://webapps.phila.gov/council/attachments/5102.pdf

    and:

     
  10. Sage of Seattle

    Sage of Seattle Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2006
    Messages:
    773
    MechAg94, one could read it in two ways:

    prohibit gun possession by people subject to protection from "abuse orders"

    or

    prohibit gun possession by people subject to "protection from abuse" orders

    The latter not the former is the correct reading in this case, IMO.
     
  11. armoredman

    armoredman Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2003
    Messages:
    16,720
    Location:
    proud to be in AZ
    Defenseless abused people who cry for more government intereferance make excellent serfs.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page