HB2011 - Amends § 6120. Limitation on the regulation of firearms and ammunition.

[Tootie]

http://amgoa.org/gun-law-texts/Penns...Introduced.pdf

adds:

(a.2) Relief.-–A person adversely affected by an ordinance,
a resolution, regulation, rule, practice or any other action
promulgated or enforced by a county, municipality or township
prohibited under subsection (a) or 53 Pa.C.S. § 2962(g)
(relating to limitation on municipal powers) may seek
declaratory or injunctive relief and actual damages in an
appropriate court.
(a.3) Reasonable expenses.--A court shall award reasonable
expenses to a person adversely affected in an action under
subsection (a.2) for any of the following:
(1) A final determination by the court is granted in
favor of the person adversely affected.
(2) The regulation in question is rescinded, repealed or
otherwise abrogated after suit has been filed under
subsection (a.2) but before the final determination by the
court.


"Person adversely affected."
Any of the following:
(1) A resident of this Commonwealth who may legally
possess a firearm under Federal and State law.
(2) A person who otherwise has standing under the laws
of this Commonwealth to bring an action under subsection
(a.2).
(3) A membership organization, in which a member is a
person described under paragraphs (1) or (2).


"Reasonable expenses."
The term includes, but is not limited
to, attorney fees, expert witness fees, court costs and
compensation for loss of income.

[mrat]

The way I read it, this is a good thing. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

[Tootie]

Yes, this is a good thing.

To quote Headcase.

What they did here is add teeth to preemption. They have added a mechanism by which one may sue and be awarded compensation, if one has been effected by a preemption violation. They have also defined who may claim to have been effected.
In practice this means... let's say Philly bans the possession of guns in parks. According to the wording of this bill, you, as a resident of the Commonwealth who is not a prohibited person, now have the ability to sue philly over the ban, and if you are successful, get paid your reasonable expenses, and damages.

It also now makes an organization who has members who are eligible, eligible to sue also. This is important because it was one of the stumbling blocks encountered when philly was sued over the five gun ordinances passed a few years ago, where the case was thrown out on a few counts because it was ruled the suit bringer had no standing to bring suit. /quote

[PAMedic=F|A=]

Darn Tootie, you beat me to posting it (angry fist*).


Already wrote my State Rep, who is a co-sponsor. I do not know if there is a Senate version, I asked my Senator to support one if present & submit one if needed.

It would be better if the personal assets of any government official who passed the legislation or provided enforcement would be used for restitution, if available before funds of the pubic.

[streaker69]

I think it's a good start, but I'd still like to see the persons responsible for passing an ordinance that violates preemption being held personally responsible. All this does is make the tax payer pick up the cost of any settlement.

There was a bill introduced in VA that recently put the penalty directly on the shoulders of the officials that pass the bad laws.

[steelerfan]

I think it's a good start, but I'd still like to see the persons responsible for passing an ordinance that violates preemption being held personally responsible. All this does is make the tax payer pick up the cost of any settlement.

There was a bill introduced in VA that recently put the penalty directly on the shoulders of the officials that pass the bad laws.

I'll second that ! I brought that up to my local state rep last summer but he was afraid of the resulting costs to taxpayers, I told him there would be no extra costs to taxpayers IF they stop passing these ordinances to which he said that's easier said than done

[Tootie]

Darn Tootie, you beat me to posting it (angry fist*).


Already wrote my State Rep, who is a co-sponsor. I do not know if there is a Senate version, I asked my Senator to support one if present & submit one if needed.

It would be better if the personal assets of any government official who passed the legislation or provided enforcement would be used for restitution, if available before funds of the pubic.

No Senate version out yet, but if I see one come in I'll post it.

I think we all need to contact our legislators about this. Sure it's not everything we want but it's a heck of a good start. Much better than the shit I see coming in for other States, you should read some of this crap they are trying to impose.

[streaker69]

I'll second that ! I brought that up to my local state rep last summer but he was afraid of the resulting costs to taxpayers, I told him there would be no extra costs to taxpayers IF they stop passing these ordinances to which he said that's easier said than done

I feel if they were held personally liable for the ordinances which they pass, we'd see far fewer instances of bad ordinances.

[steelerfan]

I feel if they were held personally liable for the ordinances which they pass, we'd see far fewer instances of bad ordinances.

I agree, he was afraid of lawsuits costing the taxpayers loads of money, but making the person or persons liable for their own actions should take care of that

[Qtrborecrazy]

I'll bo on the phone tomorrow and see if we can get something started in the senate. Since all of these townships and cities have legal beagles why shouldn't the individual be held responsible? All he or she has to do is ask the lawyer.