Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Court rejects NRA gun law challenge

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Western PA, ,
    Posts
    116

    Court rejects NRA gun law challenge

    Court rejects NRA gun law challenge
    Saturday, June 26, 2010
    By Vivian Nereim, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

    A three-judge panel of Commonwealth Court on Friday upheld the dismissal of a challenge to Pittsburgh's lost and stolen gun law, finding that the National Rifle Association and four individuals lacked the legal standing to bring the case.

    The city enacted the ordinance in 2008, requiring residents to report lost or stolen firearms within 24 hours of discovering they are missing. Violators face a $500 to $1,000 fine or 90 days imprisonment.

    No one has been cited under the law, but the NRA and four local gun owners sued Pittsburgh in 2009, arguing that the ordinance violates state code, which bars municipalities from regulating lawful gun ownership.

    The suit was tossed out by Common Pleas Judge R. Stanton Wettick Jr., but the NRA moved to reinstate the case and argued before Commonwealth Court in April.

    In Friday's decision, Judge Rochelle S. Friedman and Judge Bonnie Brigance Leadbetter, who wrote the majority opinion, upheld Judge Wettick's decision. The appellants did not face direct and immediate harm from the ordinance, so they did not have the standing to challenge it, Judge Leadbetter wrote.

    Judge P. Kevin Brobson dissented.

    Supporters of similar ordinances across the state said the decision was their second victory in one month. On June 7, the state Supreme Court declined to hear a case about Philadelphia's lost and stolen gun law.

    "This is the fifth court now to reject the NRA's arguments," said Daniel Vice, senior attorney for the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. Mr. Vice argued the city's case.

    In his dissenting opinion, Judge Brobson wrote that the court's analysis of standing was overly restrictive, creating a massive obstacle for anyone challenging an ordinance before it has been enforced.

    In order to prove they had legal standing, the appellants needed a substantial, direct and immediate interest in the outcome of the case, Judge Leadbetter wrote.

    To interpret that requirement, she relied on a decision dismissing the Philadelphia case, which reasoned that because none of the plaintiffs had been charged under the ordinance, the possibility that they might lose a gun, fail to report it and be punished was "remote and speculative."

    In Pittsburgh, one of the appellants said his gun had been stolen. Three said they lived in areas where burglaries were common. But Judge Leadbetter argued that these differences did not confer standing.

    Judge Brobson warned that under such reasoning, only someone who has violated a criminal ordinance or commits to violating it may challenge it before the ordinance has been enforced.

    Attorney Meghan Jones-Rolla, who is representing the NRA, said the dissent was "right on."

    "Especially when you're looking at a pre-enforcement challenge that infringes upon a constitutionally protected right, you should be able to be heard in court," she said.

    The NRA has 30 days to appeal the decision. Ms. Jones-Rolla was awaiting instructions from the NRA on Friday. It may request that the entire Commonwealth Court hear the case, she said. It also may request that the state Supreme Court review the decision.
    Vivian Nereim: vnereim@post-gazette.com or 412-263-1413.

    Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10177...#ixzz0rzGrcIaU

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,605
    The Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court should hear a Challenge to these 'Lost and Stolen' Ordinances, which are sweeping through the Commonwealth in many different Townships as a Plague.

    Pennsylvania Code 6120(a) should govern, and if The Commonwealth wishes to Regulate such Conduct, then, surely, The Commonwealth will pass a 'Lost and Stolen' Law when they [The Commonwealth's Legislature] reconvenes.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Cherry Tree (Indiana County), Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    1,155
    Judicial Cowardice

  4. #4
    Regular Member Sig229's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    926
    I think the 24 hour period is way too short.

    For instance, what if you were on vacation for a week or something like that?
    Last edited by Sig229; 06-27-2010 at 01:39 AM.

  5. #5
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Grennsboro NC
    Posts
    5,358
    I wonder how the media would respond if they passed a law that made it a crime to not report a rape within 24 hours? Would they support making the rape victim a criminal? A large percentage of rapes and sexual assaults go unreported or reports are delayed because of the stigma associated with sexual assault, and because of the level of mental trauma that the victims suffer.

    What about child molestation. Sometimes those crimes can happen decades before the victim comes forward? Would we make THOSE victims criminals because they delayed reporting?

    Making the victim of a crime a criminal because they don't report their victimization in a "timely manner" is worse than tyranny. It is fundamentally evil and inhumane. And good people should not stand for it.

    When our courts, LEAs and elected officials start to treat victims like they somehow deserved to be victimized, and punish them for not reporting their crimes instantly, they are adding insult to injury, and are no better than the robbers, theives, and rapists. Our nation is being run by sociopaths who seem to take delight in protecting "their own kind" and punishing those people who they view as "deserving prey". It's not just a sign of corruption, or the overbearing influence of special interests, it is a symptom of a serious sickness in our culture, and is indicative of the systemic infiltration of our government at high levels by evil, sociopathic sickos...

    Rome is falling, people.

    Vote the bums out...

  6. #6
    Founder's Club Member ixtow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Suwannee County, FL
    Posts
    5,069
    Do I gotta drive up there and steal somebody's gun?

    :-P

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Levittown, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    771
    Quote Originally Posted by Sig229 View Post
    I think the 24 hour period is way too short.

    For instance, what if you were on vacation for a week or something like that?
    ...within 24 hours of discovering they are missing.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    137
    When someone gets cited for violation of the law, then the court of common pleas or an appellate court will throw the charge out if preemption means anything at all. Until someone gets charged under these newly minted ordinances, such ordinances are toothless. In the meantime, the idiots from the anti-gun groups can celebrate all they want, but its academic until someone gets arrested. Its the courts in the end that legitimizes a new law upon hearing the case of someone actually charged.

    Kennesaw, Georgia, back in the 80s, passed a law requiring everyone of their residents to own a gun. The anti-gun zealots challenged the law. As a result, the appelate court in Georgia threw the case out because no one was charged with not having a gun.. Kennesaw never actually did charge anyone. Such ordinance was a backlash against Morton Grove, Ill. who passed a law outlawing the ownership of handguns.

Posting Permissions

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