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

[AlexanderA]

How about if I "use" it to defend myself from a home invasion gang? Is it ok to prosecute me THEN?

Legit self-defense is always a carve-out in these sorts of "discharge" ordinances.

I'm not a big enough fool to impute benign motives to malicious sociopaths like Mayor.

Politicians respond to political pressures. Their personal motives rarely have anything to do with it. Calling the mayor a "malicious sociopath" is way over the top. Not knowing him, you have no way to diagnose his mental condition.

 

[P5 Guy]

Where does Gov. Wolf stand on this?

 

[Deanimator]

Legit self-defense is always a carve-out in these sorts of "discharge" ordinances.

"ALWAYS"? And you know this for a fact?

Politicians respond to political pressures. Their personal motives rarely have anything to do with it. Calling the mayor a "malicious sociopath" is way over the top. Not knowing him, you have no way to diagnose his mental condition.

I know him by his actions. I've never met Dylann Roof either, but I have a pretty good idea of who he is.

The first part of the con of racially invidious gun controls is to believe that the advocates have good intentions. I haven't fallen for that one in at least fifty years.

 

[Hokie_PhD]

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.

Are you referring to my account t of having my classroom shot up?

If so PM me as you have a few things wrong, but do have the story generally right.

In my case a faculty member who was given a year’s paid sabbatical to go fight the 2nd Amendment was on the other side of the building. She’s been cheered on the left for claiming that since an unarmed security guard disarmed the gunman after I surprised him that we don’t even need armed guards.

Her logic in her “award winning paper” is stuff I’d have failed a freshman for. But that’s an aside.

I agree. The “do something” and the we don’t care if it works as long as we disarm people mentality is dangerous. And after trying to reason with them, I’m convinced it’s not possible. They feel they’re right and won’t stop until they “win” so laws like what the OP cite are there to chip away at those of us who respect the law.

 

[F-111 John]

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.

Instead of simply assuming that Pittsburgh's actions violated preemption, let us first examine the actual Pennsylvania preemption law:

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

§ 6120. Limitation on the regulation of firearms and ammunition.

(a) General rule.--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.

(a.1) No right of action.--

(1) No political subdivision may bring or maintain an action at law or in equity against any firearms or ammunition manufacturer, trade association or dealer for damages, abatement, injunctive relief or any other relief or remedy resulting from or relating to either the lawful design or manufacture of firearms or ammunition or the lawful marketing or sale of firearms or ammunition to the public.

(2) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to prohibit a political subdivision from bringing or maintaining an action against a firearms or ammunition manufacturer or dealer for breach of contract or warranty as to firearms or ammunition purchased by the political subdivision.
​

Nothing at all in the statute prohibits localities from passing laws prohibiting the discharge of weapons. The Pittsburgh mayor and council acted legally, if redundantly given that they already have a statute that bans discharge of any weapons within the city limits.

One exception to this and the other weapon discharge bans in Pennsylvania is during lawful hunting. This includes the city of Pittsburgh. I'm not going to do any research, beyond this article I found from 2013 describing the issue in Pennsylvania between local firearm discharge prohibition laws and state hunting laws:

https://www.post-gazette.com/life/o...ce-over-local-ordinances/stories/201312010069

 

[giggitygiggity]

Instead of simply assuming that Pittsburgh's actions violated preemption, let us first examine the actual Pennsylvania preemption law:

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

§ 6120. Limitation on the regulation of firearms and ammunition.

(a) General rule.--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.

(a.1) No right of action.--

(1) No political subdivision may bring or maintain an action at law or in equity against any firearms or ammunition manufacturer, trade association or dealer for damages, abatement, injunctive relief or any other relief or remedy resulting from or relating to either the lawful design or manufacture of firearms or ammunition or the lawful marketing or sale of firearms or ammunition to the public.

(2) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to prohibit a political subdivision from bringing or maintaining an action against a firearms or ammunition manufacturer or dealer for breach of contract or warranty as to firearms or ammunition purchased by the political subdivision.
​

Nothing at all in the statute prohibits localities from passing laws prohibiting the discharge of weapons. The Pittsburgh mayor and council acted legally, if redundantly given that they already have a statute that bans discharge of any weapons within the city limits.

One exception to this and the other weapon discharge bans in Pennsylvania is during lawful hunting. This includes the city of Pittsburgh. I'm not going to do any research, beyond this article I found from 2013 describing the issue in Pennsylvania between local firearm discharge prohibition laws and state hunting laws:

https://www.post-gazette.com/life/o...ce-over-local-ordinances/stories/201312010069

F-111 John, I did, in fact, examine the actual preemption statute and noted how it is reported that the law does more than restricts the discharging of firearms within city limits. I explained all this two posts after my initial post / five posts before your response to my initial post. Please see below.

On a related note, does anyone have the text of the signed law(s) in question? I have not been able to find them and having the actual text will be of greater benefit than relying upon news reports, word of mouth, etc.

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.

 

[F-111 John]

On a related note, does anyone have the text of the signed law(s) in question? I have not been able to find them and having the actual text will be of greater benefit than relying upon news reports, word of mouth, etc.

Available here: https://pittsburgh.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3784415&GUID=FB5A2159-21FF-4848-BE1F-99A4F53D873E&Options=ID|Text|&FullText=1

And the meat of the action:

§ 1102.02 PROHIBITION ON USE OF ASSAULT WEAPONS

A. It shall be unlawful to use any Assault Weapon in any public place within the City of Pittsburgh.

B. For purposes of this Section, "public place" shall include streets, parks, open spaces, public buildings, public accommodations, businesses and other locations to which the general public has a right to resort, but does not include a private home or residence or any duly established site for the sale or transfer of Firearms or for Firearm training, practice or competition.

C. For purposes of this Section, "use" of an Assault Weapon does not include possession, ownership, transportation or transfer. "Use" of an Assault Weapon shall include, but is not limited to:

1. Discharging or attempting to discharge an Assault Weapon;

2. Loading an Assault Weapon with Ammunition;

3. Brandishing an Assault Weapon;

4. Displaying a loaded Assault Weapon;

5. Pointing an Assault Weapon at any person; and

6. Employing an Assault Weapon for any purpose prohibited by the laws of Pennsylvania or of the United States.​

D. For purposes of this Section, the term “brandishing” means, with respect to a Firearm, to display all or part of the Firearm, or otherwise make the presence of the Firearm known to another person, in order to intimidate that person, regardless of whether the Firearm is directly visible to that person.

E. For purposes of this Section, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that an Assault Weapon is loaded if fitted with a magazine.​

I don't see anything that violates the state preemption law. Do you?

 

[AlexanderA]

I don't see anything that violates the state preemption law. Do you?

Indeed, they specifically worded the ordinance not to violate state preemption. "Use," as I suspected, is discharge + brandishing. This is a "feel good" gesture that essentially does nothing, the very definition of "virtue signalling."

 

[giggitygiggity]

Thanks for the text!

Note though that the “Assault Weapon” use piece is only one portion of the nonsense that was passed. Check out file 2018-1219 linked below which talks about ammunition and magazines.

https://pittsburgh.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3784416&GUID=235A3F50-F3F7-419E-8968-95B2D46BBFD5&Options=ID|Text|&Search=Assault&FullText=1

Specifically, look at section 1105.02 where the ownership, possession, transfer, and transport of “large capacity magazines” is banned. So if we pair this ban with how they define “large capacity magazine,” in the text, I argue there is a violation of preemption. If I own, possess, transfer, or transport a firearm with a fixed (permanently-installed) non-tubular magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds, I am in violation of Pittsburgh law. This same firearm is not restricted by PA law. However, due to the Pittsburgh law, I cannot own, possess, transfer, or transport that firearm within city limits due to its magazine capacity. Therefore, Pittsburgh has restricted and regulated my “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” by regulating a firearm component that is a required and integral part of a firearm and one not already regulated by the commonwealth.

 

[DoubleMag]

ahh yes. So Supposedly, they used a ''loophole'' to ''workaround'' the state's preemption.

I guess when it's ''we the people'' using a so called ''loophole'', its a horrible misjustice...

 

[F-111 John]

Thanks for the text!

Note though that the “Assault Weapon” use piece is only one portion of the nonsense that was passed. Check out file 2018-1219 linked below which talks about ammunition and magazines.

https://pittsburgh.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3784416&GUID=235A3F50-F3F7-419E-8968-95B2D46BBFD5&Options=ID|Text|&Search=Assault&FullText=1

Specifically, look at section 1105.02 where the ownership, possession, transfer, and transport of “large capacity magazines” is banned. So if we pair this ban with how they define “large capacity magazine,” in the text, I argue there is a violation of preemption. If I own, possess, transfer, or transport a firearm with a fixed (permanently-installed) non-tubular magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds, I am in violation of Pittsburgh law. This same firearm is not restricted by PA law. However, due to the Pittsburgh law, I cannot own, possess, transfer, or transport that firearm within city limits due to its magazine capacity. Therefore, Pittsburgh has restricted and regulated my “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” by regulating a firearm component that is a required and integral part of a firearm and one not already regulated by the commonwealth.

And in that same action, 1105.06 says the effective date of the prohibitions is 60 days after preemption is repealed by the state or overturned by the state supreme court.

§ 1105.06 EFFECTIVE DATE

A. Section 1105.02 of this Chapter shall take effect 60 days after, and to the extent permitted by, action of the Pennsylvania General Assembly or the Pennsylvania Supreme Court that has the effect of authorizing the implementation and enforcement of § 1105.02 by the City of Pittsburgh.
​

So again, no violation of preemption, just an ordinance in place ready to go if and when it is lawful to do so.

 

[AlexanderA]

Specifically, look at section 1105.02 where the ownership, possession, transfer, and transport of “large capacity magazines” is banned. So if we pair this ban with how they define “large capacity magazine,” in the text, I argue there is a violation of preemption.

But look at the effective date --

"Section 1105.02 of this Chapter shall take effect 60 days after, and to the extent permitted by, action of the Pennsylvania General Assembly or the Pennsylvania Supreme Court that has the effect of authorizing the implementation and enforcement of § 1105.02 by the City of Pittsburgh."​

So, once again, there is no violation of preemption since this doesn't take effect unless the state changes its own preemption rule. There is slight chance of that, so this falls again into the category of "feel good" legislation.

ETA: Sorry -- I was composing my answer just as F-111 John was posting his. It's funny how our wording, unbeknownst to each other, is so similar.

 

[giggitygiggity]

Gotchya. Good catch!