Pittsburgh wants to ban guns

[Mr Birdman]

PITTSBURGH MOVE TO BAN SOME GUNS, ACCESSORIES COULD SPARK LEGAL FIGHT
12/17/18 7:00 AM | by Chris Eger

Gov. Tom Wolf, D, and city leaders, flanked by gun control advocates, unveiled a host of new anti-gun measures proposed for the state’s second-largest city last week. (Photo: Wolf’s office)
Democrats in the Steel City last week announced a package of laws they would like to enact to ban various firearms, magazines and the like, despite state laws against just such a move.
The bevy of new ordinances proposed by the Pittsburgh City Council with the support of gun control groups, Mayor Bill Peduto and Gov. Tom Wolf aims to make it easier to seize guns for those thought to be at risk, ban firearms deemed “assault weapons” by name or features and outlaw bump stocks, some types of bullets, “sawed-off rifles,” suppressors and magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition.
“This legislation will help to prevent military grade weapons from reaching the hands of dangerous individuals,” said Councilperson Erika Strassburger, who co-sponsored the legislation that would ban everything from pistols with a threaded barrel to a semi-automatic rifle with a thumbhole stock.
However, gun rights organizations to include the National Rifle Association and the statewide group Firearm Owners Against Crime point out that the proposals run afoul of Pennsylvania’s 1974 firearm preemption laws barring cities and counties in the Commonwealth from establishing local gun controls of the sort proposed. The NRA, Second Amendment activists, and gun trade groups took Pittsburgh to court in 2009 and won an important legal victory against the city enforcing past ordinances regulating the transfer and possession of firearms.
“What the city is doing is criminal,” Kim Stolfer, FOAC president, told local media. “There’s going to be more than one lawsuit. We’re also going to be pursuing criminal charges against the mayor and council for intentionally violating the law.”

LATEST HEADLINES

• 
  2018-12-18 12:00:54
  A Christmas shopping list for the huntresses in your life
• 
  
  2018-12-18 10:30:53
  Wright Leather Works introduces new Signature Collection upgrade to holsters

 

[Mr Birdman]

I think there needs to be a open carry event soon.

 

[color of law]

So, I guess Pennsylvania has no gun restrictions since Article I - § 21 of their constitution says “The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.”

Per Heller:

At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry.” See Johnson 161; Webster; T. Sheridan, A Complete Dictionary of the English Language (1796); 2 Oxford English Dictionary 20 (2d ed. 1989) (hereinafter Oxford). When used with “arms,” however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose—confrontation. In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, JUSTICE GINSBURG wrote that “surely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’” Id., at 143 (dissenting opinion) (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 214 (6th ed. 1998)). We think that JUSTICE GINSBURG accurately captured the natural meaning of “bear arms.” Although the phrase implies that the carrying of the weapon is for the purpose of “offensive or defensive action,” it in no way connotes participation in a structured military organization.

Heller also pointed out:

Justice James Wilson interpreted the Pennsylvania Constitution’s arms-bearing right, for example, as a recognition of the natural right of defense “of one’s person or house”—what he called the law of “self preservation.”

 

[pennlineman]

Open carry rally scheduled 7 Jam 2019.
The rally will be January 7th at noon infront of the mayor's office.
Parking will be the first Ave Parking Garage Address is 600 1st Ave Pittsburgh PA 15219.
The address to where the protest is at its 414 Grant Street Pittsburgh PA 15219.
We plan on meeting everyone at the first Ave parking garage by 11:30 am and walking from there to rally point.
Here is the finale speaker list.
Kelly Ann Pidgeon of armed and feminine.
Aaron Bernstine 10th district state rep.
Kaitlyn Bennett the Kent state open carry lady.
Justin Dillon founder of open carry Pennsylvania.
Sam Piccinini current police officer and former S.W.A.T officer in beaver county.
Wayne Kress former psp of 21 years and now running as sheriff of beaver county
Cory Kepner. one of the Erie 8.
This list is subject to change and or be added to.
FYI must have LTCF to open and concealed carry due to the fact that there's a state of emergency in effect.


All are welcome and please spread the word!


https://triblive.com/local/alleghen...inst-proposed-pittsburgh-firearms-regulations

 

[DrMark]

Interesting. Best wishes in defending against these illegal proposed infringements.

With the mass murder at Squirrel Hill’s Tree of Life Synagogue still fresh in the minds of many, I wonder if anyone has reached out to Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO) <http://jpfo.org/> to participate.

 

[solus]

Open carry rally scheduled 7 Jam 2019.
Snipp...

FYI must have LTCF to open and concealed carry due to the fact that there's a state of emergency in effect.

All are welcome and please spread the word!

https://triblive.com/local/alleghen...inst-proposed-pittsburgh-firearms-regulations

According to the 18 december 18 cited article...

1. ...has applied for a permit to hold the rally outside the City-County Building
2. ...urged participants to “open carry your rifles on your shoulders and pistols on your waist.”

Uh pennlineman, where did you get the impression there will be a “state of emergency” the 7th of Jan 19?

 

[solus]

Interesting. Best wishes in defending against these illegal proposed infringements.

With the mass murder at Squirrel Hill’s Tree of Life Synagogue still fresh in the minds of many, I wonder if anyone has reached out to Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO) <http://jpfo.org/> to participate.

JFPO has been under the semi-direct control of SAF for the last 4+ years after almost collapsing in financial ruin and still not up to the high regard ingrained under Aaron Zelman who passed in 2010!

 

[color of law]

https://triblive.com/local/alleghen...inst-proposed-pittsburgh-firearms-regulations

Justin Dillon, 32, of Erie has applied for a permit to hold the rally outside the City-County Building on Grant Street, Downtown, starting at noon on Jan. 7. Dillon, founder of the advocacy group Open Carry Pennsylvania, said he expects as many as 300 people and many of them - including himself - would be legally armed.

“We’re coming together to say that what they’re trying to propose is not right,” Dillon said Wednesday. “It’s against the law.”

CONSTITUTION of the COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
ARTICLE I
DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
§ 20. Right of petition.
The citizens have a right in a peaceable manner to assemble together for their common good, and to apply to those invested with the powers of government for redress of grievances or other proper purposes, by petition, address or remonstrance.

Why is Justin Dillon applying for a permit? Is it because some lack knowledge of all their rights?

 

[hammer6]

https://triblive.com/local/alleghen...inst-proposed-pittsburgh-firearms-regulations

​

Why is Justin Dillon applying for a permit? Is it because some lack knowledge of all their rights?

bro- most people dont know.

 

[color of law]

bro- most people dont know.

Maybe so, but they will parish from their lack of knowledge.

I have spent my life seeking out people smarter than me so I end-up smarter than them.

 

[OC for ME]

Applying for a permit mitigates a likely citation and possible arrest for unlawful assembly. Unless, of course, you are advocating that the "gatherers" violate current law(s) to gain standing in a court of law so as to remind the court(s) that prior restraints...permits to exercise our 1A guarantee, are null-and-void. Never mind that whole large crowds tend to raise the risk of injury to one or more of the gatherers...thing.

Aint there a rule around here regarding laws, courts, and/or ballot box?

 

[color of law]

Applying for a permit mitigates a likely citation and possible arrest for unlawful assembly. Unless, of course, you are advocating that the "gatherers" violate current law(s) to gain standing in a court of law so as to remind the court(s) that prior restraints...permits to exercise our 1A guarantee, are null-and-void. Never mind that whole large crowds tend to raise the risk of injury to one or more of the gatherers...thing.

Aint there a rule around here regarding laws, courts, and/or ballot box?

And, how did the pointing out the law of the land violate the rule? You well know that a right cannot be converted into a privilege. To promote a law that violates the Pennsylvania Constitution seem odd for a member of this forum.

BB62 and myself have organized many public gatherings, and have never once procured a permission slip; not in just our home state, but other states also.

 

[OC for ME]

Not enforcing a unlawful assembly law by LE is not the same as getting the prior restraint law stricken from the books by a vote or by a judge.

 

[color of law]

Not enforcing a unlawful assembly law by LE is not the same as getting the prior restraint law stricken from the books by a vote or by a judge.

Enforcing what unlawful assembly? The Pennsylvania Constitution says "The citizens have a right in a peaceable manner to assemble together for their common good." Is the permit issued so citizens can violently assemble together for their common good? That is the only way the permit would not be in conflict with the Pennsylvania Constitution.

 

[OC for ME]

Address the point I make regarding prior restraint laws applied to peaceful protests or move along.

 

[color of law]

Address the point I make regarding prior restraint laws applied to peaceful protests or move along.

I did. Did you miss my statement "BB62 and myself have organized many public gatherings, and have never once procured a permission slip; not in just our home state, but other states also."?

Any time a permit came up, notice was given as to the right to assemble and the permit requirement faded away.

 

[OC for ME]

You did not address my point. You stated your experiences. Recited the "law of the land" canard, and obfuscated the obvious.

Until these unconstitutional laws are removed from the books, state/federal constitutions are irrelevant where permits to assemble are "required." Not every state will let peaceful protesters gather w/o permit in every instance. The fact that LE does not enforce a local ordinance/law regarding "public gatherings", consistently, does not change the fact that the law remains on the books and enforced at the whim of LE.

If you happen to be in a situation where a cop chooses to enforce a prior restraint ordinance/law, you go right ahead and wave a copy of the state/federal constitution in his face and see what happens. I certainly hope the cop reconsiders his course of action and leaves you to your peaceful endeavors, but he certainly will suffer little in the way of consequences he chooses to enforce a unconstitutional ordinance/law.

You should know this, as does BB62, from his experiences with the STL Zoo.

 

[BB62]

...You should know this, as does BB62, from his experiences with the STL Zoo.

Well, since you mentioned me...

From what I can gather, you're mixing references to public gathering laws/limits/requirements with claims of a specific location (the Zoo) being off-limits to one or more forms of carry.

To the best of my knowledge there neither was nor is any law against public gatherings at the Zoo, nor any permit requirements for same.

My experience with the STL Zoo had nothing to do with allowed or disallowed public gatherings, but rather were/are all about the Zoo's claims/assertions that (simplistically described) the Zoo was an entity which could prohibit firearm carry, and/or that it fit into one or more categories of places which are supposedly off-limits to firearm carry.

I have no desire to re-hash the Zoo matter here, however, because as I understand it litigation may continue.

 

[OC for ME]

Well, since you mentioned me...

From what I can gather, you're mixing references to public gathering laws/limits/requirements with claims of a specific location (the Zoo) being off-limits to one or more forms of carry.

...

Correct...sort of. STL City does not define a OC walk as a public gathering requiring a permit. Now, folks who are visibly armed and happen to clump together would not be considered a organized event. There is a permit scheme for "events" in STL City, and given the attitude towards visibly armed citizens in STL City, I am not confident that the twisting of a ordinance definition to shoehorn a criminal violation onto a peaceable assembly of like minded individuals would not manifest. This is why I mentioned you and the zoo. Any law can be twisted to fit a situation and cops are well known for not worrying about the costs afterwards.

Protesters that blocked roadways and impeded the public, creating a unsafe condition, a clear qualifier for a unlawful assembly in Missouri [574.040. Unlawful assembly — penalty.], were not arrested per existing state and local laws in Missouri and STL City. Thus my reference to cops not enforcing a prior restraint law.

 

[pennlineman]

Interesting. Best wishes in defending against these illegal proposed infringements.

With the mass murder at Squirrel Hill’s Tree of Life Synagogue still fresh in the minds of many, I wonder if anyone has reached out to Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO) <http://jpfo.org/> to participate.

JPFO is with us. A representative will be one of the speakers.