Philly's illegal gun law hearing postponed

[phillyshooter]

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/local/18242304.html

A hearing Monday on a challenge to the constitutionality of Philadelphia's new gun-control laws has been postponed until May 19. Common Pleas Court Judge Jane Cutler Greenspan rescheduled the hearing after a telephone conference this week with lawyers for the city and National Rifle Association, according to court records.
C. Scott Shields, the Media lawyer who filed the suit for the Fairfax, Va.-based NRA, said the delay was to give lawyers for the city more time to decide if they will challenge "standing" - the legal right of the NRA to file the suit.
In addition to the NRA, the lawsuit's plaintiffs include the National Shooting Sports Foundation; the Pennsylvania Association of Firearms Retailers; Colosimo's and Firing Line Inc., two city gun shops; and several individuals.
At an April 17 hearing at which Greenspan granted an order temporarily blocking enforcement of the gun-control laws, the judge said she had misgivings about the organizations' standing to sue. Generally, organizations cannot file a constitutional challenge without showing how their members are directly harmed by the law in question.
At that hearing, Shields argued that the two city gun dealers and the individuals would all be harmed if the gun laws were enforced.
Mark R. Zecca, a senior attorney with the city Law Department who is representing the city, declined to comment.
Shields filed suit April 15, asking for an emergency order blocking enforcement of a package of five gun laws enacted April 10 by City Council and signed the same day by Mayor Nutter.
Nutter said the new gun laws are needed to spark the public and legal debate about how to deal with the epidemic of violence in the city that last year resulted in 393 homicides and 1,734 shootings.
City officials say they hope a legal challenge will convince the state Supreme Court to reexamine its 1996 decision in Ortiz v. Commonwealth. That case invalidated a city ordinance regulating assault weapons, with the state's high court ruling that the state legislature in 1994 passed a law that specifically barred municipalities from regulating guns.
Because of the Ortiz ruling, District Attorney Lynne Abraham said she cannot legally enforce the new gun laws.
City Solicitor Shelley R. Smith said she believes the new laws will be able to pass Supreme Court review.
The five laws would:
Permit authorities to seek a judge's order to take guns from people proven to be a risk to themselves or others.
Ban from gun ownership those who are subject to a protection from abuse order.
Give gun owners 24 hours to report to police after discovering the loss or theft of their gun.
Ban possession or sale of assault or contraband firearms in the city.
Limit gun purchases to one a month and require buyers to get a police certification they have not bought another gun in the last month.

Contact staff writer Joseph A. Slobodzian at 215-854-2985 or jslobodzian@phillynews.com.

[ErnieD]

I assume that the temporary injunction blocking enforcement of the illegal laws still stands (until May 19)...

Now it's confusing....so, the NRA's right to file suit may be challenged by the city? I guess it's too difficult for the city to prove that the illegal laws should stand on their own...

[LittleRedToyota]

the judge said she had misgivings about the organizations' standing to sue. Generally, organizations cannot file a constitutional challenge without showing how their members are directly harmed by the law in question.

WTF!

there are plenty of NRA members in philly who own guns that they would have to get rid of if these laws were to take effect. obviously NRA members are directly harmed by the laws in question.

this judge needs to follow the (crystal clear) law and not try to make up her own.

[JoeWilliams]

Originally Posted by LittleRedToyota

WTF!

there are plenty of NRA members in philly who own guns that they would have to get rid of if these laws were to take effect. obviously NRA members are directly harmed by the laws in question.

this judge needs to follow the (crystal clear) law and not try to make up her own.

So... the question the judge has to decide is if the courts want to handle a test case on behalf of one city res and a couple of gun shops, or if they want the NRA to start backing lawsuits by each and every one of the affected gun owners in the city.

[SHEPHERD321]

So the gun grabbers will claim victory when the supreme court upholds that people subject to a pfa can't have guns. And a judge can currently involentarily commit someone now. The other three will be struck down.

Lets see what happens in NYC tonght. Will it burn?

[LittleRedToyota]

Originally Posted by SHEPHERD321

So the gun grabbers will claim victory when the supreme court upholds that people subject to a pfa can't have guns. And a judge can currently involentarily commit someone now. The other three will be struck down.

the court can't uphold any of them if they follow the law.

the law clearly states that philly cannot regulate the possession of firearms. all of these laws do that.

[tmg19103]

A Philly judge who is probably a Democrat, who is probably already in bed with Philly politicians, and who does not want to appear weak on gun-control so she can get re-elected in anti-gun Philly has full immunity to make any bogus ruling she wants. For those who don't like lawyers, judges are far more corrupt in PA. They can make ANY ruling they want with full immunity, no matter how much it subverts case law, the rule of law and common sense. The government in Philly has no respect for the rule of law, so why should Philly judges?

Would not surprise me if the city judge rules in favor of the city. Not sure if this would then get appealed to the Commonwealth or Superior Court, but that ruling should be in our favor. Then Philly will appeal to the PA Supreme Court and they will be smacked down and create further case law that works in our favor. At the PA Supreme Court level the corruption is in our favor as Supreme Court judges are in bed with pro-gun state legislators.

[SHEPHERD321]

The no guns with a pfa and involentary committal are already in place.

[LittleRedToyota]

Originally Posted by SHEPHERD321

The no guns with a pfa and involentary committal are already in place.

as part of state law.

but, the philly ones will be shot down as they violate pre-emption.

[Philadelphia]

Originally Posted by LittleRedToyota

WTF!

there are plenty of NRA members in philly who own guns that they would have to get rid of if these laws were to take effect. obviously NRA members are directly harmed by the laws in question.

this judge needs to follow the (crystal clear) law and not try to make up her own.

The judge is doing OK and has already blocked enforcement of the illegal laws.

The NRA as a party thing is a little esoteric but the gist of it is that since the NRA is not a person or business affected by the laws, but just an association of members interested in the outcome, it doesn't have standing to complain about the laws (the local individual members can, of course). The ranges, gun shops and individuals who are parties in the suit will do just fine as far as standing goes (and as the judge has already ruled in their favor so far).

If the NRA does get tossed as a party (which would actually be the correct result -- ordinarily associations don't have standing), nothing will change. The lawyers for the remaining parties are still free to consult with and get assistance from the NRA lawyers in pushing ahead so it's not like we lose any numbers of people working this case.

The reason the judge raised it and not the city is because the city likely recognizes it won't make any difference either way so didn't bother to even mention it.

Believe it or not, the judge is doing the right thing. No mistakes or oversight of even the smallest detail along the way makes for a much more bullet proof opinion if it gets appealed. I think we're still in very good shape on this one.