Philadelphia Challenges NRA's Challenge of New Gun Laws

[Winchester 73]

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.

 

[Standing Wolf]

"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."

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.

 

[TexasRifleman]

"allege an actual injury."

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.

 

[K-Romulus]

If the NAACP can successfully assert "standing" to sue Glock, Inc. because "a lot of black people are killed BY 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.

 

[romma]

Nevermind the fact that law abiding businesses will be run out of business by the "one a month nonsense"...

 

[MechAg94]

prohibit gun possession by people subject to protection from abuse orders

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.

 

[Animal Mother]

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?

 

[IllHunter]

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.

 

[K-Romulus]

The magazine ban somewhat mirrors the New jersey ban: up to 16-rounders are allowed, BUT internal magazines are limited to 10 rounds .

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

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

§10-821a. Contraband Weapons, Accessories and Ammunition.
....
(2) Definitions.

(a) "Assault weapon." The term includes the following:
----(.3) Any semiautomatic, center-fire rifle with a fixed magazine that
has the capacity to accept more than ten rounds of ammunition.
....

(c) “Contraband Weapons, Accessories and/or Ammunition.” Any assault
weapon, bazooka, recoilless rifle, grenade, rifle grenade launcher, anti-tank gun, flamethrower,
rocket, mortar, bomb, mine, booby trap, large capacity magazine, large capacity
ammunition belt, weapon silencer, expanding type conical bullet available in handgun
chamberings , or other weapon, device, accessory or ammunition, designed or intended to
cause injury or death to persons or damage to property for which no common lawful
purpose exists, any item defined as an "offensive weapon" under the Act of December 6,
1972, P.L. 1482, No. 334, sec. 1, as amended, 18 Pa. C.S.A. 908(c) or any other military
style weapon from which a projectile, harmful fluid or gas may be propelled.
....

(h) “Large Capacity Magazine.” Any box, drum or other container which holds
more than sixteen (16) rounds of ammunition to be fed continuously and directly
therefrom into a semi-automatic weapon, or a magazine which can be readily converted
into such a device.

and:

(3) Prohibited Conduct.
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 following
without 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.
(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.

(b) The Police Department shall, by regulation, specify procedures whereby
persons permitted to own, possess, transfer, deliver, or manufacture contraband weapons,
accessories and/or ammunition notwithstanding the provisions of this Section may obtain
certification of such exempt status, upon proving the basis of their exemption, and upon
payment of a reasonable fee set by the Department to defray the cost of such certification
process.

(5) Penalties.
Any person violating any provision of this Section shall be subject to a fine of not more
than three hundred (300) dollars and to imprisonment for not more than ninety (90) days
or both. Prosecution under this Section shall be subject to the defenses and exemptions
set forth in 18 Pa. C.S.A. 908(b), as amended.

 

[Sage of Seattle]

Quoterohibit gun possession by people subject to protection from abuse orders

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.

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.

 

[armoredman]

Defenseless abused people who cry for more government intereferance make excellent serfs.