Re: Pittsburgh Mayor Bill Peduto pushing for bans on assault weapons and more.
now that's funny! Nikon camera ?? wow assault camera
Re: Pittsburgh Mayor Bill Peduto pushing for bans on assault weapons and more.
“It's frustrating in the sense that it's being used as a means to try to push further the polarizing debate on immigration when the basis for it is simply unconstitutional,” Peduto said.
I was watching the local news last evening and this story came on. It seems that the Feds are withholding grant money for police if the city doesn't sign a grant clause stating they will work with ICE.
From where I sit committing to working with a federal agency shouldn't be an issue.
However, what struck me was the statement about constitutionality. It is OK to attempt to override my constitutional rights but when the city's "rights" are threatened there is a a question of constitutionality. Interesting.
Re: Pittsburgh Mayor Bill Peduto pushing for bans on assault weapons and more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
MikeStull
“It's frustrating in the sense that it's being used as a means to try to push further the polarizing debate on immigration when the basis for it is simply unconstitutional,” Peduto said.
I was watching the local news last evening and
this story came on. It seems that the Feds are withholding grant money for police if the city doesn't sign a grant clause stating they will work with ICE.
From where I sit committing to working with a federal agency shouldn't be an issue.
However, what struck me was the statement about constitutionality. It is OK to attempt to override my constitutional rights but when the city's "rights" are threatened there is a a question of constitutionality. Interesting.
Bring on the gulags for the fair weather commies.
Re: Pittsburgh Mayor Bill Peduto pushing for bans on assault weapons and more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
MikeStull
“It's frustrating in the sense that it's being used as a means to try to push further the polarizing debate on immigration when the basis for it is simply unconstitutional,” Peduto said.
I was watching the local news last evening and
this story came on. It seems that the Feds are withholding grant money for police if the city doesn't sign a grant clause stating they will work with ICE.
From where I sit committing to working with a federal agency shouldn't be an issue.
However, what struck me was the statement about constitutionality. It is OK to attempt to override my constitutional rights but when the city's "rights" are threatened there is a a question of constitutionality. Interesting.
Good compliance with Federal law should be a requirement for ALL federal grants PERIOD!
Re: Pittsburgh Mayor Bill Peduto pushing for bans on assault weapons and more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Brick
Good compliance with Federal law should be a requirement for ALL federal grants PERIOD!
I have mixed feelings about this philosophy. I am a strong believer in state rights as long they stay in compliance with the Constitution. If the government is withholding money because a state is not in compliance with a Constitutional issue..... I am on board. If a state or city is not completely in compliance with the 2nd and infringes on firearm rights..... (which most states do) I am on board.
But for me it gets less clear for issues where there is not a direct Constitutional crisis. Saying to a state or city that “you are not in compliance with federal law in this area means we will not give you back money you sent us in another area” does not sit well with me.
My thinking is that the federal government has used federal funds as a way to control states and strong arm them to enact things that the people in the state may support. Using federal funds in this way can weaken state rights. They have the states send money to the federal government then say “Do things the way we want you to and we will give you some of your money back as we see fit”.
So the people from Pa give tons of money to the Federal Govt then they turn around and say “If you don’t do things the way we want you to, we will keep all your money or give it to other states who will bend to our will, do things the way we tell you to and we will give you some of your money back”. So if a state has a disagreement with the federal goverment...... they are shit out of luck when it comes to getting money back for their state.
Btw... this post is not saying whether the ice issue falls into constitutional category. I would have to research more to comment on that. It’s just a general statement that I can see where a state or city not being in line with some federal law should not disqualify that state from all federal aid.
Re: Pittsburgh Mayor Bill Peduto pushing for bans on assault weapons and more.
But GRANTS are usually give for specific purposes and in order to get a grant a municipality must usually apply and compete for one. Beside that federal law trumps local law at all times unless the federal law is determined to be Unconstitutional by the courts. Thus with the current idiocy over medical and recreational marijuana going on, it is only the forbearance of the federal gov't keeping users, sellers and the state officials who sanctioned the legalization from being arrested. Where the Federal gov't and ICE get things wrong with tehir "detainer" requests is they're too stupid to have a magistrate in each ICE regional office who can sign the detainer and make it an arrest warrant. So just as we get peeved when the Governor and Attorney General of our state do not slap some idiot Mayor down for trying to or actually passing an illegal so too with the Feds.
Re: Pittsburgh Mayor Bill Peduto pushing for bans on assault weapons and more.
Hizzonor Pedildo is forgetting the Golden Rule - He who gots the gold makes the rules. You want federal funds? You've got to comply with their rules, or demands. Don't like the rules or demands? Don't accept the funds.
Re: Pittsburgh Mayor Bill Peduto pushing for bans on assault weapons and more.
There's a hearing today. Looking forward to just1more's on-the-spot reports! :)
Re: Pittsburgh Mayor Bill Peduto pushing for bans on assault weapons and more.
I thought this case in Ohio was interesting considering the topic at hand. Cincinnati tried to pass bump stock laws against state laws and the Courts ruled against the city.
https://www.guns.com/news/2019/02/12...bump-stock-ban
Court shoots down city bump stock ban
Chris Eger
Two Ohio cities adopted a local ban on bump stocks last year and both have been dashed by the courts. Meanwhile, a federal ban looms. (Photo: Slide Fire Solution)
An Ohio judge last week rejected a ban adopted by the city of Cincinnati on bump fire stocks, siding with gun rights groups who challenged the local law.
Hamilton County Judge Robert Ruehlman on Monday hit city officials with a permanent injunction against the ordinance, leaving Cincinnati unable to enforce it. The lawsuit, brought by the Buckeye Firearms Foundation and Ohioans for Concealed Carry, argued the local ban was illegal considering state laws.
“This ban was completely unjustified and a great concern for gun owners,” said Dean Rieck, executive director of Buckeye Firearms Foundation. “Under Ohio law, local municipalities are not permitted to enact firearms laws that conflict with state law. And clearly, outlawing guns or gun parts is a clear violation of state law.”
It is not the first time that Ohio courts have thrown out a municipal bump stock prohibition. Judge David Cain, writing for the Franklin County Common Pleas Court, last year found that the city’s ban did not square against state preemption law which prevents local governments from regulating firearms.
Meanwhile, a federal ban on the devices, set to take effect in March, is the subject of numerous legal challenges. Last week, U.S. District Judge Dabney L. Friedrich heard a motion for a preliminary injunction on the looming national ban in a D.C. federal court, which, if granted, would keep the devices legal pending further rulings. Regulators believe there could be as many as 500,000 such devices in circulation.
Re: Pittsburgh Mayor Bill Peduto pushing for bans on assault weapons and more.
Resurrecting this thread with the vote coming up this week. I had a chance to go back and read the most recent proposition:
https://pittsburgh.legistar.com/Legi...ch=&FullText=1
They have essentially gutted the bill, taking out anything having to do with semi-auto or modern sporting rifles (I refuse to use the AW words), and leaving in just some crap about armor piercing ammo, bianary triggers, and high cap mags. They try and claim they have the right to ban ammo and mags via PA CS 53, and that protecting people overrides PA CS 62.
The reference information they use in their findings is suspect at best (Mother Jones? Really?!?!), deceitful and outright lies at worst(claiming the 90's assault weapons ban noticably decreased mass shootings). The writers of this document have done a good job conflating PA laws and national court rulings to make it appear they are justified in their actions.
Although some will say this is a win for us, it's not. It's still a little nibble here and a little nibble there on magazines. I certainly wouldn't let the camels nose under the tent, or bloomturd and his money will soon be flowing into other municipalities willing to push the limits. I think we should still get together and rally once this goes into effect.
