New Phila.(illegal)Gun Laws Temporarily Blocked

[Emptymag]

(Thanks to Rev214 for pointing this out in another thread!)


New Phila. Gun Laws Temporarily Blocked

PHILADELPHIA (AP) ― A judge has temporarily blocked Philadelphia from enforcing its new gun-control laws.

Common Pleas Judge Jane Cutler Greenspan says her temporary restraining order will maintain the status quo until the case is argued.

The National Rifle Association says that state law specifically prevents municipalities from regulating guns.

City lawyers argue that Philadelphia can pass supplemental laws.

The new ordinances include a requirement to report theft or loss of a gun within 24 hours. They also ban the possession or sale of assault weapons and limit purchases to one firearm per month.

Cutler Greenspan will hold a hearing on the case on April 28.

Philadelphia District Attorney Lynne Abraham says the state Supreme Court has already made it clear that Philadelphia can't make its own gun laws.




http://cbs3.com/local/nra.gun.control.2.702060.html

[Pa. Patriot]

Originally Posted by Emptymag

City lawyers argue that Philadelphia can pass supplemental laws.

The Phila attorneys should be disbarred. They know full well that the ordinances are illegal.

[P89]

Originally Posted by Pa. Patriot

The Phila attorneys should be disbarred. They know full well that the ordinances are illegal.

Agreed.
Unethical Philly Lawyers? Who knew?

[Agent Ronin]

Originally Posted by Emptymag

Philadelphia District Attorney Lynne Abraham says the state Supreme Court has already made it clear that Philadelphia can't make its own gun laws.

Atleast someone in Philly gets it...

[RocketFoot]

From the above global alert! http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20..._gun_laws.html

A Philadelphia judge this morning temporarily blocked enforcement of a package of five gun-control laws enacted last week by City Council.Common Pleas Court Judge Jane Cutler Greenspan also said that the order would remain in effect pending a further hearing April 28.
C. Scott Shields, the lawyer who filed the lawsuit for the National Rifle Association, said an emergency order was needed to allow city gun shops to know which guns they can sell.
The lawsuit was filed late Tuesday, just hours after District Attorney Lynne M. Abraham told City Council members that she believed the gun-control package was unconstitutional and that she would not enforce it.
Abraham said that as a lawyer and elected official, she was bound to obey the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. In 1996, the court invalidated a city ordinance to regulate assault weapons, ruling that the state legislature in 1994 passed a law specifically barring municipalities from regulating guns.
The state Supreme Court also dismissed on the same ground a 1999 move to hold gun manufacturers liable for Philadelphia's toll of gun violence.
Abraham said she agreed with the intent of the city laws but added, "I know that the ordinances are invalid and unenforceable according to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania."
But City Solicitor Shelley R. Smith told Council that "our analysis suggests these laws are defensible . . . if we are sued in court."
Doug Oliver, Nutter's spokesman, said the city expected a lawsuit "sooner rather than later."
"If a court of law is where we'll need to go to force a discussion about how to make our city safe, then that's where we'll be," Oliver said. "As the mayor said, doing nothing is not an option."
The lawsuit arose before the first arrest could be made. In addition to the NRA, plaintiffs include the National Shooting Sports Foundation; the Pennsylvania Association of Firearms Retailers; Colosimo's and Firing Line Inc., two Philadelphia gun shops; and several individuals.
The five laws, introduced by Council members Darrell L. Clarke and Donna Reed Miller, were passed unanimously last Thursday and Nutter signed them the same day.
The laws:
Permit authorities to seek a judge's order to remove guns from people declared to be a risk to themselves or others.
Ban people who are subject to a protection-from-abuse order from owning guns.
Require gun owners to report to police theft or loss of a gun within 24 hours of the discovery.
Ban possession or sale of assault or contraband firearms within city limits.
Limit firearm purchases to one a month and require buyers to obtain a police certification that they have not purchased another firearm within the previous month.

What's up with the highlighted statement? Seems like beating around the bush...Illegal means ILLEGAL!

[crlovel]

Originally Posted by Pa. Patriot

The Phila attorneys should be disbarred. They know full well that the ordinances are illegal.

Absolutely agree. Shame on the leadership in Philly.

[MrUgly]

Originally Posted by RocketFoot

From the above global alert! http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20..._gun_laws.html

What's up with the highlighted statement? Seems like beating around the bush...Illegal means ILLEGAL!

Likely the "emergency" was so the Judge could rule now, as opposed to letting it sit on the docket for a few weeks.

[knighthawk06699]

Originally Posted by MrUgly

Likely the "emergency" was so the Judge could rule now, as opposed to letting it sit on the docket for a few weeks.

Very true and I don't feel it was to help gun sellers. I believe it just the words the NRA used in order to get things moving instantly. If the NRA can show that certain laws no matter their legtimacy or not, is effecting to income of it's resident's then it does become an emergency. Cause in that instance I do believe the city can be held financially responsible. I am still waiting to see Nutter and his lackies brought up on charges. I have no clue how to start one but I would love to see a internet of regular petition started for just that. It is a line from "V for Vendetta" and some one elses signature on this site not sure who's but it is and I believe it firmly....

"The people should not fear their government, the government should fear their people."

[Mohaa Player]

Hey Nutter"RACK EM!"

[policemedic]

I'll be making an effort to attend that hearing.

As an aside, 'defensible' seems like an interesting term. A lawyer could honestly say that the bills are 'defensible' in that an argument could be presented in favor of the bills. The fact that the argument would be specious and without merit, doomed to failure as soon as the last syllable fell from the litigator's lips is irrelevant...the bills were 'defended'.

What they did not say was that the bills would survive a challenge based on the state preemption laws, or the state or federal constitutions.

In any case, it will be an interesting morning.