Philadelphia passed bill against state preemption: No carry for out of state licenses

david.ross · Feb 4, 2011

http://legislation.phila.gov/attachments/10674.pdf

This bill passed Philadelphia's city council 17-0 yesterday.

What does it do?

If you're not licensed by the state, then it's not lawful to carry.

What about state preemption?

What about it? Philadelphia appears to want another court case.

UPDATE:
http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?id=6195

"According to local news reports LF 100722 will be recalled and amended with undisclosed language and reconsidered at the next city council meeting on February 17. We must take advantage of this opportunity to stop LF 100722 by flooding calls into the Philadelphia City Council and your state legislators urging them to OPPOSE LF 100722. Let them know that LF 100722 doesn’t stop criminals it only turns law-abiding Pennsylvanians into criminals. Also, urge your family, friends and fellow gun owners to call the city council and their state legislators to OPPOSE LF 100722."

aadvark · Feb 4, 2011

insane.kangaroo:

Philadelphia City Council Measure LF 100722 Violates Pennsylvania State Law 18 Pa.C.S. 6120.

Maybe, The Supreme Court of The CommonWealth of Pennsylvania would be Interested in Hearing about this Illegal Ordiaince that Violates The Laws of The CommonWealth!

aadvark

Cavalryman · Feb 4, 2011

Does Pennsylvania have a preemption law? If so, what does it say? In Alaska, such an ordinance would be illegal because state law specifies that no entity may pass a law, ordinance, or regulation more restrictive than state law.

Curmudgeon · Feb 4, 2011

Cavalryman said:
Does Pennsylvania have a preemption law? If so, what does it say? In Alaska, such an ordinance would be illegal because state law specifies that no entity may pass a law, ordinance, or regulation more restrictive than state law.

Yes...

18 Pa.C.S. § 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.
(b) Definitions.--As used in this section, the following words and phrases shall have the meanings given to them in this subsection:
"Dealer." The term shall include any person engaged in the business of selling at wholesale or retail a firearm or ammunition.
"Firearms." This term shall have the meaning given to it in section 5515 (relating to prohibiting of paramilitary training) but shall not include air rifles as that term is defined in section 6304 ( relating to sale and use of air rifles).
"Political subdivision." The term shall include any home rule charter municipality, county, city, borough, incorporated town, township or school district.

Axctal · Feb 4, 2011

What bothers me is that those monkeys will keep passing and passing and passing those ordinances till the cows come home. The city will keep loosing and loosing and loosing ... and the monkeys do not care - they do not pay for those court expenses.

How about going aggressively against them PERSONALLY?
What I mean is this: as long as there is a history of such behavior established, go against them individually and as a group for conspiracy of violating civil rights.

Pass new bill which is against state law and violates constitution - lawsuit
"comply" with court decision by passing a "modified" bill just like that - lawsuit against the city AND against monkeys for conspiracy to violate civil rights.

Bottom line - try to get them INDIVIDUALLY

Cavalryman · Feb 4, 2011

Curmudgeon said:
Yes...

Then the Philly ordinance is meaningless and anyone who attempts to enforce it would be guilty of false imprisonment. I smell a lawsuit in the making.

Thundar · Feb 6, 2011

Axctal said:
What bothers me is that those monkeys will keep passing and passing and passing those ordinances till the cows come home. The city will keep loosing and loosing and loosing ... and the monkeys do not care - they do not pay for those court expenses.

We fixed this problem in Virginia. Our preemption law now provides for the possible payment of our lawyer fees by a municipality that has preempted laws or rules.

Deanimator · Feb 6, 2011

Thundar said:
We fixed this problem in Virginia. Our preemption law now provides for the possible payment of our lawyer fees by a municipality that has preempted laws or rules.

Likewise in Ohio.

The way to prevent this kind of thing is to go after the enforcing LEOs without one iota of mercy. "I was just following orders" is just as corrupt in English as in German. They KNOW they're committing crimes and civil torts. Keep a couple of cops' kids from going to college and the number willing to fall on their swords for Nutter will vanish to nothing.

Witness the example of Cleveland. It didn't even have to get that far there. The Cleveland FOP advised its members not to obey any order to enforce Cleveland's preempted AWB, lest THEY be sued and lose. And in Ohio, punitive damages against LEOs are NOT indemnified by their employer. It was sage advice. Cleveland just lost its challenge to preemption.

Uber_Olafsun · Feb 6, 2011

Perhaps pass a law that anyone that tries to violate state or federal law by creating a local law?

OldCurlyWolf · Feb 7, 2011

Just file charges on all members of the city council if you are arrested under this illegal ordinance. And sue them as individuals. Not as the City of Philadelphia.

c45man · Feb 7, 2011

This law will remain on the books until someone gets arrested. There is recent prescedent that affirms the states rights to preemption, as such, the city district attorney may elect not to prosecute. Most city residents that are arrested for firearms violations involve those who don't have any permit at all, being that most have criminal records and can't legally own guns to begin with.

Axctal · Feb 9, 2011

Suing the LEOs is like fighting a windmill - you are fighting the consequence/executors, not the cause.

What I was talking about is going after the CAUSE - the "virtual immunity" of the legislators.
Here is an example: If a senator/whatnot-legislator comes up on the stage and openly proposes a bill/law to violate the civil rights of blacks (you know - back seats on the bus, segregation, you name it) -- you know what going to happen to this senator (and that will not stop just in civil cour(s)). However, it is not uncommon for some Boxers/Schumers/etc to stand up in the senate (or for some monkey in city council) and without even disguising it propose a bill/law which violates civil rights of "we, the people" if it deals with firearms.

How about start pushing a CRIMINAL charges on them for conspiracy to violate civil right?
So they would equally refrain from proposing "high-capacity mag ban" as they are refraining from proposing a "black-segragation bill"

Fighting a consequence is always a loosing battle. Fight the cause of it.

Deanimator · Feb 9, 2011

Axctal said:
Suing the LEOs is like fighting a windmill - you are fighting the consequence/executors, not the cause.

Suing the LEOs deters them, especially when somebody can't send his kids to college.

Who's going to enforce the law if the cops won't, NUTTER???

Is a law everybody's too scared to enforce really a law?

Axctal · Feb 9, 2011

OldCurlyWolf said:
Just file charges on all members of the city council if you are arrested under this illegal ordinance. And sue them as individuals. Not as the City of Philadelphia.

This again - fighting a CONSEQUENCE of a SPECIFIC event caused by the law.
Okay, you *might* win (after investing SOME time and money) and be lucky if they compensate (some) of your expenses.
Tomorrow, the monkeys will reconvene and will "change" the law by amending a few lines such that "they complied with the court", however maintaining the same spirit and application practice of the law (NYC/Chicago example anyone?).
They can do this endlessly.

Fight the CAUSE - see my post above.

marshaul · Feb 9, 2011

Why not simply make legislators civilly liable for damages and fees that result from any laws they pass which are deemed unconstitutional?

since9 · Feb 10, 2011

Thundar said:
We fixed this problem in Virginia. Our preemption law now provides for the possible payment of our lawyer fees by a municipality that has preempted laws or rules.

Outstanding! If the Philly cheesesteaks at the municipality level can't follow State law, that's bound to be irritating to the state legislators who wrote the law. Capture their attention, and direct it towards the obvious Virginia and Ohio solutions.

Philadelphia passed bill against state preemption: No carry for out of state licenses

david.ross

Regular Member

aadvark

Regular Member

Cavalryman

Campaign Veteran

Curmudgeon

Regular Member

Axctal

Regular Member

Cavalryman

Campaign Veteran

Thundar

Regular Member

Deanimator

Regular Member

Uber_Olafsun

Regular Member

OldCurlyWolf

Regular Member

c45man

Regular Member

Axctal

Regular Member

Deanimator

Regular Member

Axctal

Regular Member

marshaul

Campaign Veteran

since9

Campaign Veteran