Civil action for deprivation of rights committed by Nutter / Philly PD?

[TaePo]

I believe the feds have some laws that they use regarding interstate commerce as a reason / excuse to interfere in certain matters. Nutter's law has actually affected sales inside of Philadelphia. So citizens are unable to conduct lawful activities and business.

IANAL so not sure how it could all play out. But it could be another serious problem to add IMHO.

If it applies, then it would be similar to the government getting Al Capone for tax evasion since they were unable to pin actual crimes on him.

[Sam_Wise]

Please go to this site read and sign it.
Please spread the word about this Petition!
I will no longer stand for criminal actions by anyone!!!
Please let me know if you do pass this on

http://www.gopetition.com/online/18851.html

Thank you,
Brian A. Morelli
Philadelphia, PA

[WhiteFeather]

This action is unconscionable and illegal.

Please keep in mind that what Nutter and Council did are 'criminal’ acts.

Each vote was a violation of PA law sections 903 (Criminal Conspiracy) and 6120 (municipal preemption). Each count is a misdemeanor one violation of law for each person.

fyi: 1st degree misdemeanor: up to 5 years in jail & maximum $10,000 fine per offense.

Frankly I would like to see The Council and Mayor taken out in handcuffs under the penalty section of Title 18, section 6119 but I know that won't happen either.

[pennsylvania_programmer]

Originally Posted by TaePo

I believe the feds have some laws that they use regarding interstate commerce as a reason / excuse to interfere in certain matters. Nutter's law has actually affected sales inside of Philadelphia. So citizens are unable to conduct lawful activities and business.

IANAL so not sure how it could all play out. But it could be another serious problem to add IMHO.

If it applies, then it would be similar to the government getting Al Capone for tax evasion since they were unable to pin actual crimes on him.

No offense to you TaePo, I'm sure you mean the best; but be careful what you ask for! Trying to use this liberal spin on the constitution to meet your goals would only lend credence in their,[big government democrats], eyes for further encroachment into the jurisdiction of the state, and further limit the sovereignty of Pennsylvania. Any temporal benefit we would get from locking up or fining these crooks would be overshadowed by the federal government poking it's nose where it doesn't belong. Since Philadelphia has a very liberal constituency, even if Nutter, et al. were locked up, a new set of rubber brains would in all likelyhood take their place. Moreover, once power has been granted, it is not easily if ever relinquished. Just look at Wickard vs Filburn(1942) to see what kind of bullcrap this line of thinking brings.

[TaePo]

Originally Posted by pennsylvania_programmer

No offense to you TaePo, I'm sure you mean the best; but be careful what you ask for! Trying to use this liberal spin on the constitution to meet your goals would only lend credence in their,[big government democrats], eyes for further encroachment into the jurisdiction of the state, and further limit the sovereignty of Pennsylvania. Any temporal benefit we would get from locking up or fining these crooks would be overshadowed by the federal government poking it's nose where it doesn't belong. Since Philadelphia has a very liberal constituency, even if Nutter, et al. were locked up, a new set of rubber brains would in all likelyhood take their place. Moreover, once power has been granted, it is not easily if ever relinquished. Just look at Wickard vs Filburn(1942) to see what kind of bullcrap this line of thinking brings.

Although I tend to support the idea of laissezfaire, the case you cite is one that, yes, tends on strict controls.

However, since the act already exists constitutionally, we should you use it.

"Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution, known as the Commerce Clause, states that Congress has the exclusive authority to manage commerce between the states...." (also from Wikipedia BTW)

One could not allow NY and NJ to pass a law restricting otherwise lawful behavior. For example, "No firearms are allowed to be transferred or transported through the state." Or let's go with cigarettes or whatever might be banned.

Then, all products in this case, originating in New England would have to go by ship or via air etc. This would clearly violate Congress' exclusive authority.

In Philadelphia, gun shop owners and potential buyers were unable to transact sales of firearms (most likely ones that came from out of state).

This is the flipside or 'good' execution in favor of the individual citizens for a change.

Just my opinion on the matter, though I can see where you are coming from as well.