Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 29

Thread: Pittsburgh to consider illegal gun law on Tuesday 18 NOV 08

  1. #1
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=4229

    Pennsylvania: Pittsburgh City Council to Consider Anti-Gun Ordinance on Tuesday, November 18!

    Thursday, November 13, 2008


    Please Stand-Up and Make Your Voice Heard!

    On Tuesday, November 18, the Pittsburgh City Council could vote on an anti-gun ordinance that would require gun owners to report a lost or stolen firearm within a 72-hour period or face fines and possible imprisonment.

    At the request of the Pittsburgh City Council, several anti-gun speakers have been asked to attend this meeting for discussion purposes. One of those speakers is gun control advocate State Representative David Levdansky (D-39). Similar legislation, sponsored by Representative Levdansky, was defeated in the state legislature earlier this year.



    This proposed ordinance would violate Pennsylvania’s state preemption statutes which dictate that only the state can enact further firearms regulations. It would victimize law-abiding gun owners a second time by penalizing those who unknowingly fail to report the theft or loss of a firearm.



    The Pittsburgh City Council will consider this ordinance at 1:00 p.m. on Tuesday, November 18 in the City Council Chambers on the 5th Floor of the City County Building located at 414 Grant Street in Pittsburgh.



    Please attend and proudly show your support for the Second Amendment and your opposition to this illegal attack on our rights. If you cannot attend, please contact the members of the City Council and respectfully urge them to stand up for your Second Amendment rights and oppose this measure. Contact information can be found below.



    Pittsburg City Council


    District 1
    Councilwoman Darlene M. Harris
    412-255-2135



    District 2
    Councilman Daniel J. Deasy
    412-255-8963



    District 3
    Councilman Bruce A. Kraus
    412-255-2130



    District 4
    Councilman Jim Motznik
    412-255-2131



    District 5
    Councilman Doug Shields, President
    412-255-8965



    District 6
    Councilwoman Tonya D. Payne
    412-255-2134



    District 7
    Councilman Patrick Dowd
    412-255-2140



    District 8
    Councilman Bill Peduto
    412-255-2133
    District 9
    Reverend Ricky V. Burgess, President Pro Tem
    412-255-2137

  2. #2
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,622

    Post imported post

    And? What happened?

    Yata hey
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  3. #3
    Regular Member david.ross's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA, USA
    Posts
    1,241

    Post imported post

    Nothing yet, unless you can tell the future.

    "The Pittsburgh City Council will consider this ordinance at 1:00 p.m. on Tuesday, November 18 in the City Council Chambers on the 5th Floor of the City County Building located at 414 Grant Street in Pittsburgh."

    Obviously Mike can't read.
    Gays are prominent members of firearm rights, we do more via the courts, don't like it? Leave.
    Religious bigots against same sex marriage are not different than white supremacists.
    I expel anti-gay people off my teams. Tolerance is key to team cohesion and team building.

  4. #4
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,622

    Post imported post

    insane.kangaroo wrote:
    Nothing yet, unless you can tell the future.

    "The Pittsburgh City Council will consider this ordinance at 1:00 p.m. on Tuesday, November 18 in the City Council Chambers on the 5th Floor of the City County Building located at 414 Grant Street in Pittsburgh."

    Obviously Mike can't read.
    I need to slow down and actually read the instructions - saw 18th as 13th - my bad - reading the future would have benfit would it not.

    Yata hey
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  5. #5
    Regular Member david.ross's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA, USA
    Posts
    1,241

    Post imported post

    title said 13 before Mike changed it.
    Gays are prominent members of firearm rights, we do more via the courts, don't like it? Leave.
    Religious bigots against same sex marriage are not different than white supremacists.
    I expel anti-gay people off my teams. Tolerance is key to team cohesion and team building.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Cincy area, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    891

    Post imported post

    It's truly a shame that these statewide pre-emption laws concerning firearms have no enforcement "teeth". Otherwise we'd get to see some mayors, councilpersons, etc., thrown in the hoosegow. That could be quite entertaining!

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Western PA, ,
    Posts
    116

    Post imported post

    http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08323/928875-100.stm

    City's lawyers, police disagree on lost-gun bill Tuesday, November 18, 2008 By Timothy McNulty, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette The city's Law Department and its Police Bureau are at odds over a proposed city gun control bill.
    A Ravenstahl administration lawyer testified today that a proposed requirement that city gun owners notify police when their guns are stolen is unenforceable under state law.
    Mayor Luke Ravenstahl has been silent on a bill three city councilmen proposed last month exposing gun owners to fines and possible jail time if they do not report their guns are stolen and if the guns are later used in crimes. The law -- also approved by Philadelphia and Allentown after the General Assembly voted down a statewide version -- is an attempt to stem the use of stolen guns in violent crime. It is widely supported by law enforcement officials statewide.
    Mr. Ravenstahl's police chief, Nate Harper, testified in favor of the proposal at a council hearing this afternoon, and so did Det. Jill Smallwood Ruston, who tracks stolen guns for the Police Bureau. Of the 1,007 firearms the bureau recovered last year, only 117 had been reported stolen. Of that 117, 67 were from city gun owners and 50 from outside the city, she said.
    "We're not asking to violate anybody's rights," Det. Ruston said of her support for the bill. "I am asking us to make some changes [to target] those who should not be in possession of a firearm and those taking the time and energy to go down to a gun store and pass it on to someone who should not be having it in the first place."
    The city's Law Department does not agree, at least with the argument that the city can pass such a requirement. Assistant Solicitor Michael Kennedy said their study indicates that state law supersedes local governments on gun issues and the Pittsburgh measure would be unenforceable.
    Lawyers for Philadelphia city government have argued differently, in a losing case before Commonwealth Court that they appealed to the state Supreme Court. Joe Grace, of gun control group CeaseFire Pa, echoed Philadelphia city attorneys when he said state law only covers the legal uses of firearms. The local restrictions would instead target illegal uses.
    The ordinance would require that anyone whose handgun is lost or stolen in the city tell police within 24 hours or potentially face a $500 fine. Failure to report the loss of a second handgun would result in a $1,000 fine with the possibility of 90 days in jail.
    Kim Stolfer of the Allegheny County Sportsmen's League argued that it's wrong to penalize the legal gun owners and said police officials should instead be targeting lax prosecution and court sentencing for allowing criminals back on the streets.
    "If you really want to stop violent crime, that's where it is --- a failure to prosecute our laws," Mr. Stolfer said.
    More details in tomorrow's Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. First published on November 18, 2008 at 3:01 pm

    [In accord with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this article or photograph is
    distributed without profit to those who have an interest in receiving
    such material for educational purposes. Any other use requires
    contacting the author.]



  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Western PA, ,
    Posts
    116

    Post imported post

    http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08324/928964-53.stm


    Police Bureau, Law Department tangle over gun control measure Wednesday, November 19, 2008 By Timothy McNulty, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette The city's Law Department and its Police Bureau are at odds over a gun control bill.
    A Ravenstahl administration lawyer testified yesterday that a proposed requirement that city gun owners notify police when their guns are stolen is unenforceable under state law.
    Mayor Luke Ravenstahl has been silent on a bill three city councilmen proposed last month exposing gun owners to fines and possible jail time if they do not report their guns are stolen, and the guns are later used in crimes. The law -- also approved by Philadelphia and Allentown, after the General Assembly voted down a statewide version -- is widely supported by law enforcement officials statewide and opposed by gun-rights groups.
    Police Chief Nate Harper testified in favor of the proposal at a council meeting yesterday, and so did Detective Jill Smallwood-Ruston of the Police Bureau's Firearms Tracking Unit.
    Of the 1,007 firearms the bureau recovered last year, only 117 had been reported stolen -- of that number, 67 were from city gun owners and 50 were from outside the city, she said. The numbers this year are similar.
    Also, of the 105 murders countywide this year, 90 have been gun- related; of the city's 64 murders, 51 were gun-related.
    "We're not asking to violate anybody's rights," Detective Smallwood-Ruston said of her support for the bill. "I am asking us to make some changes [to target] those who should not be in possession of a firearm and those taking the time and energy to go down to a gun store and pass it on to someone who should not be having it in the first place."
    The city's Law Department does not agree -- at least with the argument that the city can pass such a requirement. Assistant Solicitor Michael Kennedy said the department's study indicates that state law supersedes local governments on gun issues and the Pittsburgh measure would be unenforceable.
    Lawyers for Philadelphia have argued differently, in a losing case before Commonwealth Court that they appealed to the state Supreme Court. State law, argued Philadelphia's Joe Grace, of gun control group CeaseFirePa, echoing the city's attorneys, only covers the legal uses of firearms. The local restrictions would instead target illegal uses.
    Mr. Grace, CeaseFirePa's executive director, also acknowledged that the local ordinances are part of an effort to pressure the Legislature into making statewide changes to stolen gun guidelines.
    The ordinance would require that anyone whose handgun is lost or stolen in the city tell police within 24 hours of noticing the gun's absence, or potentially face a $500 fine. Failure to report the loss of a second handgun would result in a $1,000 fine with the possibility of 90 days in jail.
    Most council members seemed to lean in favor of the legislation, with the possible exceptions of Patrick Dowd and Ricky Burgess. Mr. Dowd -- who tangled a bit with Mr. Grace at the hearing -- said it did not go far enough to take illegal guns off the streets. Mr. Burgess, who requested the legal review of the bill, said he supports gun-control efforts but has concerns the bill is illegal and unenforceable.
    Public comment on the legislation will be taken at a hearing at 10 a.m. tomorrow, with a council vote as early as Monday.
    Tim McNulty can be reached at tmcnulty@post-gazette.com or 412-263-1581. First published on November 19, 2008 at 12:00 am




    [In accord with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this article or photograph is
    distributed without profit to those who have an interest in receiving
    such material for educational purposes. Any other use requires
    contacting the author.]






  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    Why do these people dork around with stuff like this. If it is really such a problem just pass a law that reads use a gun to commit a robbery, mugging, rape, etc. and it is a capital offense. We just kill you. No repeat offenders. Hang or electrocute 3-5 people a week in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia for using a firearm in commission of a violent crime now your talking deterrent for the bad guys. And it puts no burden on the good guys to do yet even more to put the BGs into the revolving door.


    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Western PA, ,
    Posts
    116

    Post imported post

    http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08329/930426-100.stm

    Council passes controversial bill on stolen guns Monday, November 24, 2008 By Rich Lord, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette Pittsburgh City Council gave its first approval today to legislation requiring that anyone report a lost or stolen firearm report that within 24 hours or potentially face a $500 fine.
    The 6-1 vote, with two abstentions, sets up a final vote likely next week, which would send the legislation to Mayor Luke Ravenstahl for his signature or veto, and then potentially to the courts, where similar measures have been challenged.
    "Who really cares about it being unconstitutional?" said Councilwoman Tonya Payne, a supporter. "This is what's right to do, and if this means that we have to go out and have a court battle, then that's fine ... We have plenty of dead bodies coming up in our streets every single day, and that is unacceptable."
    The lone no vote was by Councilman Ricky Burgess, who argued that it would be a "false cure" that would be "particularly cruel" to his violence-plagued northeastern Pittsburgh district.
    "This legislation will not strike a blow to straw purchasers," he said. "This ordinance will not be enforced, no loopholes will be closed and no lives will be saved, because no municipality can legally regulate firearms of any kind, at any time, for any reason."
    Council's vote is a win for groups engaged in a statewide push to get local rules for reporting lost and stolen guns. The state House rejected a statewide bill in April.
    Advocates appearing before council today argued that people called straw purchasers frequently buy guns, then sell them to criminals who could not pass the required background checks. When the guns are used in crimes and traced back to the straw purchaser, he or she just claims the weapon was lost or stolen. Unless that can be disproved, the straw purchaser is off the hook.
    "It's a loophole that allows illegal gun traffickers to simply state that a weapon was stolen," said Councilman William Peduto, one of three authors of the bill along with Council President Doug Shields and Councilman Bruce Kraus.
    Councilmen Dan Deasy and Patrick Dowd abstained.
    Mr. Dowd said that in passing the measure council is "not really effectively changing the situation on the ground," and is inviting a lawsuit.
    Philadelphia has sought to enforce similar legislation, but the effort has been tied up in litigation. Legally, the question is whether the state ban on local laws on "the transfer, ownership, transportation or possession" of guns extends to the reporting of lost or stolen firearms.
    The Commonwealth Court threw out Philadelphia's measure, and other gun control rules there. The matter is heading for the state Supreme Court.
    "To me the question is wide open" on whether such rules are allowed, said Mr. Shields. "This is where you go in [to court] and you make your arguments."
    First published on November 24, 2008 at 3:24 pm

    [In accord with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this article or photograph is
    distributed without profit to those who have an interest in receiving
    such material for educational purposes. Any other use requires
    contacting the author.]


  11. #11
    Regular Member jahwarrior72's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Nizzy EEzzy in da Pizzy
    Posts
    388

    Post imported post

    Farmer Troy wrote:
    http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08329/930426-100.stm

    Council passes controversial bill on stolen guns Monday, November 24, 2008 By Rich Lord, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette Pittsburgh City Council gave its first approval today to legislation requiring that anyone report a lost or stolen firearm report that within 24 hours or potentially face a $500 fine.
    The 6-1 vote, with two abstentions, sets up a final vote likely next week, which would send the legislation to Mayor Luke Ravenstahl for his signature or veto, and then potentially to the courts, where similar measures have been challenged.
    "Who really cares about it being unconstitutional?" said Councilwoman Tonya Payne, a supporter. "This is what's right to do, and if this means that we have to go out and have a court battle, then that's fine ... We have plenty of dead bodies coming up in our streets every single day, and that is unacceptable."
    The lone no vote was by Councilman Ricky Burgess, who argued that it would be a "false cure" that would be "particularly cruel" to his violence-plagued northeastern Pittsburgh district.
    "This legislation will not strike a blow to straw purchasers," he said. "This ordinance will not be enforced, no loopholes will be closed and no lives will be saved, because no municipality can legally regulate firearms of any kind, at any time, for any reason."
    Council's vote is a win for groups engaged in a statewide push to get local rules for reporting lost and stolen guns. The state House rejected a statewide bill in April.
    Advocates appearing before council today argued that people called straw purchasers frequently buy guns, then sell them to criminals who could not pass the required background checks. When the guns are used in crimes and traced back to the straw purchaser, he or she just claims the weapon was lost or stolen. Unless that can be disproved, the straw purchaser is off the hook.
    "It's a loophole that allows illegal gun traffickers to simply state that a weapon was stolen," said Councilman William Peduto, one of three authors of the bill along with Council President Doug Shields and Councilman Bruce Kraus.
    Councilmen Dan Deasy and Patrick Dowd abstained.
    Mr. Dowd said that in passing the measure council is "not really effectively changing the situation on the ground," and is inviting a lawsuit.
    Philadelphia has sought to enforce similar legislation, but the effort has been tied up in litigation. Legally, the question is whether the state ban on local laws on "the transfer, ownership, transportation or possession" of guns extends to the reporting of lost or stolen firearms.
    The Commonwealth Court threw out Philadelphia's measure, and other gun control rules there. The matter is heading for the state Supreme Court.
    "To me the question is wide open" on whether such rules are allowed, said Mr. Shields. "This is where you go in [to court] and you make your arguments."
    First published on November 24, 2008 at 3:24 pm

    [In accord with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this article or photograph is
    distributed without profit to those who have an interest in receiving
    such material for educational purposes. Any other use requires
    contacting the author.]
    isn't that nice?
    Givin' up the tactical advantage since 2008.

    Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Western PA, ,
    Posts
    116

    Post imported post

    Ya gotta love a lawmaker who doesn't want to uphold the constitution . . . NOT!!


  13. #13
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,622

    Post imported post

    Farmer Troy wrote:
    Ya gotta love a lawmaker who doesn't want to uphold the constitution . . . NOT!!
    No oath of office for such representatives as her?

    Yata hey


    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  14. #14
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lobelville, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    2,615

    Post imported post

    I'm curious. Could some one explain how this legislation infringes on LAC right to keep and bear arms? I'm just asking, since I don't have a dog in this hunt.

    It seems to me that if a person that legally owns legal firearms and they are stolen, they would want to report it to LE ASAP in hopes of getting them back and to prevent suspicion being cast on themselves in the event the weapons are used in the commission of a crime later.

    Criminals are usually the ones that don't report when their illegal poperty is stolen. Yeah, there are those rareidiot exceptions that will call the cops and report they were robbed of their illegal drugs.

    The idea that this law would curb straw purchases may sound logical, but I don't think it will do that much to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

    As for Councilwoman Payne's remark about the Constitution, she needs to be voted out of office for that alone.

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Indiana, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    674

    Post imported post

    The Unified Firearms Act places all ability to pass (legal) laws regarding firearms with the state, and restricts lower authorities from the ability to pass any.

    That's how.

  16. #16
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lobelville, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    2,615

    Post imported post

    Aran wrote:
    The Unified Firearms Act places all ability to pass (legal) laws regarding firearms with the state, and restricts lower authorities from the ability to pass any.

    That's how.
    OK, so that means that the state would have to pass this sort of law, right? Cities, municpalities can't, right?

    I take it that the objection to this legislation is because it is the City of Pittsburg doing it and not the state? Would there be objection if the State passed such law?

    Just asking for clarity.

  17. #17
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,622

    Post imported post

    As I understand it, preemption prevails but certain parties continue to thumb their noses at the state law makers.

    I am sure such would be objected to even at state level since it only places another level of burden on honest citizens. BGs could simply report a gun stolen or lost before anything occurred.

    Why not just make it against the law to use a gun in a crime or for a felon to possess one?

    Yata hey
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Indiana, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    674

    Post imported post

    Yes, it would still be an issue at that point as well, for the reasons Grapeshot cited.

  19. #19
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lobelville, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    2,615

    Post imported post

    Aran wrote:
    Yes, it would still be an issue at that point as well, for the reasons Grapeshot cited.
    OK. Like I said, I don't have a stake in this since I don't live in PA. Although, I could come to our state at some point.

    I guess in a way it's like being victemized twice if you don't report the theft. Much like a rape victem gets raked over the coals in court by the council for the defense.

    Another question about this ordinance. Since this proposed law is making not reporting the loss of a gun a crime, is it to be a mistermeaner or a felony? If it'sto be afelony that would make it illegal for the theft victem to purchase/own a firearm in the future. As a mistermeaner it could jeopardize someones ability to acquire a CCW.

  20. #20
    Regular Member jahwarrior72's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Nizzy EEzzy in da Pizzy
    Posts
    388

    Post imported post

    Task Force 16 wrote:
    I'm curious. Could some one explain how this legislation infringes on LAC right to keep and bear arms? I'm just asking, since I don't have a dog in this hunt.

    It seems to me that if a person that legally owns legal firearms and they are stolen, they would want to report it to LE ASAP in hopes of getting them back and to prevent suspicion being cast on themselves in the event the weapons are used in the commission of a crime later.

    Criminals are usually the ones that don't report when their illegal poperty is stolen. Yeah, there are those rareidiot exceptions that will call the cops and report they were robbed of their illegal drugs.

    The idea that this law would curb straw purchases may sound logical, but I don't think it will do that much to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

    As for Councilwoman Payne's remark about the Constitution, she needs to be voted out of office for that alone.



    look at it this way: i go on vacation for a3 weeks. the day after i leave, someone breaks into my home, and steals my guns. i don't find out about it until 3 weeks later, when i return. the man who stole my guns is caught 2 weeks after the fact, with my guns. when i return, i'll come home to find out i committed a felony, or multiple felonies, because i didn't report my guns as being stolen.

    Givin' up the tactical advantage since 2008.

    Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ

  21. #21
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lobelville, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    2,615

    Post imported post

    jahwarrior72 wrote:
    Task Force 16 wrote:
    I'm curious. Could some one explain how this legislation infringes on LAC right to keep and bear arms? I'm just asking, since I don't have a dog in this hunt.

    It seems to me that if a person that legally owns legal firearms and they are stolen, they would want to report it to LE ASAP in hopes of getting them back and to prevent suspicion being cast on themselves in the event the weapons are used in the commission of a crime later.

    Criminals are usually the ones that don't report when their illegal poperty is stolen. Yeah, there are those rareidiot exceptions that will call the cops and report they were robbed of their illegal drugs.

    The idea that this law would curb straw purchases may sound logical, but I don't think it will do that much to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

    As for Councilwoman Payne's remark about the Constitution, she needs to be voted out of office for that alone.



    look at it this way: i go on vacation for a3 weeks. the day after i leave, someone breaks into my home, and steals my guns. i don't find out about it until 3 weeks later, when i return. the man who stole my guns is caught 2 weeks after the fact, with my guns. when i return, i'll come home to find out i committed a felony, or multiple felonies, because i didn't report my guns as being stolen.
    That could happen, for sure, unless the ordinance is worded in such a way that the report has to be made within 24 hrs of having knowledge of the theft. Otherwise all this law does is create additional hinderance to legal gun owners. Which may be the purpose to begin with. I don't see it doingmuch to stop guns from getting into the hands of criminals.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Ambridge, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    13

    Post imported post

    Kevin miller on kdka radio is talking about this.

    http://www.kdkaradio.com/pages/59315.php

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    City of Angeles - San Fernando Valley, California, USA
    Posts
    158

    Post imported post

    http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...p;postcount=31


    Pending LTE...

    I was stunned to read that the Pittsburgh City Council had voted 6-1, with two abstentions, to pass a bill that required any owner of a firearm that is lost or stolen to report said firearm within 24 hours. A fine of $500 is possible for violating the law.

    It is my understanding from what I read, the Pennsylvania State Constitution reserves the right to make laws concerning firearms to the state and not local governments. It is also my understanding Council members take an oath to uphold this same state constitution.

    Obviously, Tonya Payne has no regard for your state Constitution after uttering this statement: "Who really cares about it being unconstitutional." She, along with the other five council members, have clearly violated their oath to uphold the Pennsylvania State Constitution with their vote. They should be immediately removed from office and criminally charged. Tonya Payne, based on her statement alone, should never be permitted to hold public office again.

    Their decision to vote for this bill will cost the hard working taxpayers of Pittsburgh tens of thousands, if not more, when the city council is taken to court for violating state law. There is no question the city will be sued, it is just a matter of when. Other localities, as mentioned in the article, have been when they too, decided to take the law into their own hands.

    San Francisco, in my state, illegally passed a firearm law that cost their taxpayers millions of dollars in the ensuing law suit. They tried to usurp the state law and even though their mayor knew they would lose the court case that would follow, as they did ten years earlier for another firearm law, he was willing to go to court and spend the taxpayers' money. The result: The California Supreme Court overruled the city law, stating it violated the California Constitution.

    Your city faces the same result and you have only your city council people to blame.

    As far as the two members who abstained from voting on the bill, they showed by that decision they did not have the fortitude to do what was right and legal; voting no. They should be shown no more respect than those who voted for it.





  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Hinesville, Georgia, USA
    Posts
    187

    Post imported post

    "Who really cares about it being unconstitutional?" said Councilwoman Tonya Payne, a supporter.
    Here is my response posted Councilcritter Payne on the city website.

    I am writing in response to Ms. Payne's comment in the Post Gazette about council passing the unconstitutional ordinance requiring gun owners to report a stolen weapon withing 24 hours. I am a proud military Veteran, having sworn an oath to the US Constitution in the Pittsburgh Federal Building. Ms. Payne's comment"Who really cares about it being unconstitutional?" is an outrage to those of us who have fought, some dying, to protect our system of government and our rights. The US Constitution, in its Original Intent, is an all or nothing deal. I ask Ms. Payne - How would she like it if we disregarded the 13th, 14th, 15th, and 19th Amendments?

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Western PA, ,
    Posts
    116

    Post imported post

    Correct me if I am wrong here, but I believe her statement is referring to the Pennsylvania Constitution, not the U.S. Constitution.

    Still, I agree with the basis of your statement though. I am a vet also.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •