Pennsylvania Firearm Owners Association
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Hatboro, Pennsylvania
    (Montgomery County)
    Posts
    304
    Rep Power
    226058

    Default High Court Refuses to Hear Phila. Gun Ordinance Case

    Not a big surprise, but welcome news nonetheless on the so-called "assault weapons" ban and one gun a month Philly ordinances. From today's Legal Intelligencer:


    High Court Refuses to Hear Phila. Gun Ordinance Case

    Zack Needles

    06-08-2010

    The state Supreme Court has denied allocatur in a case in which the Commonwealth Court struck down two Philadelphia ordinances -- one dealing with a ban on assault weapons and the other requiring that only one handgun be purchased per 30-day period -- but upheld three other city gun ordinances.

    Last June, a seven-judge en banc Commonwealth Court panel unanimously ruled that a group of gun advocates lacked standing to challenge three other city ordinances dealing with seizure of firearms from persons who pose a risk of imminent harm to themselves or others, prohibiting the acquisition and possession of firearms by persons subject to a protection from abuse order and requiring that gun owners report lost or stolen firearms to law enforcement within 24 hours of realizing they’re missing.

    But the panel was split 6-1 in its decision to enjoin the city from enforcing the two others.

    On Tuesday, the Supreme Court issued separate per curiam orders denying appeals from both the city and the gun advocates, which comprised the National Rifle Association, NRA members Jon Mirowitz, Eugene Walworth, John Olexa and Charles H. Cox III, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the Pennsylvania Association of Firearms Retailers and two local firearm retailers, Firing Line Inc. and Colosimo’s Inc.

    The advocates' attorney, C. Scott Shields of Shields & Hoppe in Media, Pa., said Tuesday that the allocatur denials represent a "huge victory" for the NRA and gun owners because the city remains barred from enforcing the two ordinances "that had the most teeth."

    As for the three other ordinances the Commonwealth Court upheld last year, Shields said the city has yet to begin enforcing them. "But when they do, we’ll be back in court because then there will be no question as to standing," he said.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
    (Philadelphia County)
    Posts
    207
    Rep Power
    54

    Default Re: High Court Refuses to Hear Phila. Gun Ordinance Case

    I may be mistaken, but isn't there a huge difference between deciding not to hear something due to lack of standing and actually upholding a law?

    It seems to me that the distinction should have been made more clear.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Cherry Tree, Pennsylvania
    (Indiana County)
    Age
    76
    Posts
    5,488
    Rep Power
    21474859

    Default Re: High Court Refuses to Hear Phila. Gun Ordinance Case

    High Court Refuses to Hear Phila. Gun Ordinance Case

    Zack Needles

    06-08-2010
    Well, maybe Zack's needles aren't as sharp as he thinks they are. When writing a story, one should always have someone totally clueless on the subject read it. If it makes sense to that person, then it's good to go.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Hatboro, Pennsylvania
    (Montgomery County)
    Posts
    304
    Rep Power
    226058

    Default Re: High Court Refuses to Hear Phila. Gun Ordinance Case

    It would have been better if the Supreme Court had granted the NRA's appeal and ruled it did have standing to challenge all the ordinances, but that was unlikely to happen, even though it never made sense why the NRA had standing to sue over two ordinances, but not the other three passed as part of the same package. So, the Commonwealth Court's ruling remains in effect -- Philly is preempted from enforcing the one-gun-a-month ordinance and the "assault weapons" ordinance. If the city starts ever tries to enforce the "lost and stolen" gun ordinance and the others that the Commonwealth Court did not strike down, then the NRA will sue again.

    Zack has added some more background in a version of the story posted today: http://www.law.com/jsp/pa/PubArticle...=1202461674619

    High Court Refuses to Hear Philadelphia Gun Ordinance Case

    Zack Needles

    06-09-2010

    The state Supreme Court has denied allocatur in a case in which the Commonwealth Court struck down two Philadelphia ordinances — one dealing with a ban on assault weapons and the other requiring that only one handgun be purchased per 30-day period — but upheld three other city gun ordinances.

    Last June, a seven-judge en banc Commonwealth Court panel unanimously ruled that a group of gun advocates lacked standing to challenge three city ordinances dealing with seizure of firearms from persons who pose a risk of imminent harm to themselves or others, prohibiting the acquisition and possession of firearms by persons subject to a protection from abuse order and requiring that gun owners report lost or stolen firearms to law enforcement within 24 hours of realizing they're missing.

    But the panel was split 6-1 in its decision to enjoin the city from enforcing the two others.

    On Tuesday, the Supreme Court issued separate per curiam orders denying appeals from both the city and the gun advocates, which comprised the National Rifle Association, NRA members Jon Mirowitz, Eugene Walworth, John Olexa and Charles H. Cox III, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the Pennsylvania Association of Firearms Retailers and two local firearm retailers, Firing Line Inc. and Colosimo's Inc.

    The advocates' attorney, C. Scott Shields of Shields & Hoppe in Media, Pa., said Tuesday that the allocatur denials represent a "huge victory" for the NRA and gun owners because the city remains barred from enforcing the two ordinances "that had the most teeth."

    As for the three other ordinances the Commonwealth Court upheld last year, Shields said the city has yet to begin enforcing them.

    "But when they do, we'll be back in court because then there will be no question as to standing," he said.

    Richard G. Feder of the Philadelphia Law Department said the city was "disappointed" the Supreme Court denied its appeal. Writing for the majority in National Rifle Association v. City of Philadelphia last June, President Judge Bonnie Brigance Leadbetter said that the "Assault Weapons Ordinance," which would prohibit ownership, possession or transfer of any contraband weapon, accessory or ammunition, and the "Straw Purchaser Ordinance," which would prohibit both straw purchasing of handguns and ban the purchase of more than one handgun in any 30-day period for anyone engaged in straw purchasing, are precluded by the state constitution.

    Leadbetter found that the state Supreme Court had set this precedent with its ruling in the 1995 case Ortiz v. Commonwealth .

    Leadbetter was joined by Judges Bernard L. McGinley, Dan Pellegrini, Rochelle S. Friedman, Renée Cohn Jubelirer and Johnny J. Butler.

    Judge Doris A. Smith-Ribner said in her dissenting opinion that she did not believe state law or the Ortiz decision stood in the way of the city's enactment of the ordinances.

    Section 6120(a) of the Pennsylvania Uniform Firearms Act precludes local regulation of "the lawful ownership, possession, transfer or transportation of firearms, ammunition or ammunition components when carried or transported for purposes not prohibited by the laws of this commonwealth."

    The city argued that because the ordinances in question sought to regulate unlawful activity and did not regulate the "carrying or transporting" of firearms, it should not be prohibited by state law from enacting them.

    Leadbetter agreed with the city that Section 6120(a) appears to only apply to ordinances aimed at regulating lawful acts but said that "the crystal clear holding" in Ortiz nevertheless precluded the city from enacting its ordinances.

    The city also argued that since the decision in Ortiz did not address the qualifying phrase "when carried or transported," it should not apply here.

    But Leadbetter said "the fact that the court in Ortiz did not discuss the statutory language relied upon by the city does not provide a legitimate basis for us to ignore its holding."

    The Supreme Court's holding in Ortiz that the General Assembly intended to deny all municipalities the power to regulate firearms precluded the city from enacting the ordinances, Leadbetter said.

    Smith-Ribner said she didn't believe the holding in Ortiz was quite so clear.

    "The majority agrees with the city that preemption 'appears to be limited to the lawful use of firearms by its very terms,' ... but notwithstanding this concession the majority proceeds to rely on Ortiz , which did not resolve this issue either expressly or impliedly," she said. "Total preemption in this area of the law is not as clear as the majority presumes, and its view remains rebutted by the dissent in Clarke v. House of Representatives , until the Supreme Court issues a definitive, clear and precise decision in the matter."

    Smith-Ribner said that in her dissent in Clarke v. House of Representatives , a 2008 Commonwealth Court case, she "emphasized the senseless deaths that occur from gun violence suffered in the city by innocent citizens and by police officers acting in the line of duty."

    "I take judicial notice again of the fact that more innocent citizens have been killed in Philadelphia from gun violence and that additional Philadelphia police officers were killed from gun violence in 2008 and in 2009 while acting in the line of duty: Sergeant Patrick McDonald and Police Officer John Pawlowski," she said.

    Feder told The Legal Tuesday he thought the Supreme Court might have denied the city's appeal because of the current case's similarities to Ortiz .

    "It wasn't that long ago that Ortiz was issued," he said. "We don't think Ortiz decided this case but we can understand why the court might have felt differently." As for the matter at the heart of the gun advocates' appeal to the Supreme Court, Leadbetter said last June that the group "failed to establish any injury sufficient" to challenge three other city ordinances. Those ordinances were the "Imminent Danger Ordinance," allowing temporary confiscation of firearms from persons found by the court to pose a risk of imminent personal harm to themselves or to others, the "Domestic Abuse Ordinance," banning persons subject to an active protection from abuse order from acquiring or possessing firearms when the order calls for confiscation of the firearms, and the "Lost or Stolen Gun Ordinance," requiring firearm owners to report their lost or stolen firearms to law enforcement officials within 24 hours of realizing they're missing.

    Shields told The Legal Tuesday that he and his clients "were always a little befuddled as to how we could have standing to challenge part of a package of ordinances, but not the whole thing."

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    ?, Pennsylvania
    (Berks County)
    Posts
    2,152
    Rep Power
    18666

    Default Re: High Court Refuses to Hear Phila. Gun Ordinance Case

    Anyone have the text of these ordinances available?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Hatboro, Pennsylvania
    (Montgomery County)
    Posts
    304
    Rep Power
    226058

    Default Re: High Court Refuses to Hear Phila. Gun Ordinance Case

    Quote Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post
    Anyone have the text of these ordinances available?
    Here you go:

    One Gun a Month: http://legislation.phila.gov/attachments/5326.pdf

    Lost and Stolen: http://legislation.phila.gov/attachments/5100.pdf

    Assault Weapons Ban: http://legislation.phila.gov/attachments/5102.pdf

    Prohibiting Possession, Sale, Transfer by People Subject to Protection from Abuse Orders: http://legislation.phila.gov/attachments/5099.pdf

    Temporary Removal of Firearms: http://legislation.phila.gov/attachments/5098.pdf

    ___

    The Commonwealth Court's ruling from last June (the one the state Supremes just refused to hear the appeals on) is here: http://www.aopc.org/OpPosting/Cwealt...08_6-18-09.pdf

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    south western PA, Pennsylvania
    (Allegheny County)
    Posts
    3,498
    Rep Power
    12565222

    Default Re: High Court Refuses to Hear Phila. Gun Ordinance Case

    Well since the PA supreme court has finally decided the legality (illegality) of ordinances.

    The ‘ends do not justify the means’ and that they had NO authority to even enact these illegal ordinances which was clearily outside of their powers to enact them.

    When is city council (that voted for this) and mayor of Philly going to be arrested for violation of the law?

    After all they knowingly worked, conspired with others and illegal passed ordinances that was clearly outside their legislative powers to enact. they violate the existing laws of the commonwealth of PA and committed a crime.

    They bet all, they lost.... its now time to do some jail time. A the the least They should all be required to personally repay out of their own pockets all the cost which tax payers had to cover for court cost this illegal action they took that was outside their delegated powers.

    Want to bet they won’t be held accountable for committing a crime or for the cost?

    That anyone of US would have gone to jail for and been held fully accountable for our actions if we did this to one of their powers we violated for our really good "reason".

    This double standard of accountability is a very dangerous game they are playing....

    This being held to a lower standard of no accountable of the laws for elected people that play politics like in this case, that willingly violate their oath of office is going to cause a nasty backlash one of these days.....

    they really should read some past history for a historical perspective of how people in government were treated when people said enough is enough when they did this kind of stuff to often to be tolerated. I hope they realize this before this happens, so it won't happen again.





    Don’t worry the anti-gunners will hail this supreme court ruling as a victory disregarding the “no standing” or just because no one has been injured (yet) by the non enforceable ordinances as meaning this is legal for any municipality or city in PA to enact.. watch anti-gun groups like CeaseFirePA cite this decision everywhere with their spin on meaning its now "legal".

    All of these local ordinances are for political agenda.
    Its true purpose is JUST to force the state legislators to enact them because they are illegal to enforce at the local level.

    . Locals can enact them, IF they are enforced anywhere unjustly, we have legal standing to have all of them overturned with one court ruling, they know this, everyone knows, but just pretends they don't.

    If we can keep them from passing them at the state level it’s going to be stalemate.

    So no one wins except the criminals, which are right now not being held accountable when they break existing firearm laws. Gun charges are routinely the first one plea deals do away with...... So the anti-gunners are on the side of criminals, on the wrong side of police and Citizens despite their political rhetoric and BS to the contrary.

    Anyone ever hear the anti-gunners ever point out the inconvenient fact (like gun owners do) about the lack of enforcement and aggressive prosecution to existing firearms laws against recidivist violent criminals?

    WHY NOT?

    That's right....doesn't happen. the anti-gun groups are always about the same solution let enact another gun control law, who cares if the last one we lobbied for didn't work.... lets just pass another one and then another one.

    Till firearms are so highly regulated and so restricted that almost no one can afford to own them, then we just have a constitutional convention and do a re written and remove all constitutional ownership that is left.



  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Hatboro, Pennsylvania
    (Montgomery County)
    Posts
    304
    Rep Power
    226058

    Default Re: High Court Refuses to Hear Phila. Gun Ordinance Case

    Agreed -- the antigunners will continue to lie, cheat and otherwise make mischief. Wish the Supremes had taken the NRA's appeal and overturned the Commonwealth Court on the other three ordinances, but at least two were knocked out of the box, and should the others ever be enforced, another lawsuit will be commenced. You are 100 percent on target that these ordinances are all about appearances, rather than actually doing anything about crime.

    This also reminds me of how important judicial elections are, even though it can be difficult to figure out where a judicial candidate may come down on gun rights. Judicial elections are just as important as the legislative and gubernatorial elections, and we need to work on getting pro-freedom judges elected. God forbid Rendell and his lawyer buddies get their way and bring completely mis-named "merit selection" to PA, so that the people would have absolutely no voice on who gets put on the bench.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Ambler, Pennsylvania
    (Montgomery County)
    Age
    56
    Posts
    1,505
    Rep Power
    2320645

    Default Re: High Court Refuses to Hear Phila. Gun Ordinance Case

    Quote Originally Posted by shiloh View Post
    It would have been better if the Supreme Court had granted the NRA's appeal and ruled it did have standing to challenge all the ordinances, but that was unlikely to happen, even though it never made sense why the NRA had standing to sue over two ordinances, but not the other three passed as part of the same package.[snip]
    In a sense, it does make sense (according to the rules of "standing").

    The "package" aspect is irrelevant; each statute stands alone.

    The two that were allowed to continue (being challenged) were blanket prohibitions on the otherwise lawful actions of all persons, therefore everyone has standing.

    The other three apply only to persons in specific circumstances, so they would have to be challenged by people impacted under those circumstances.
    Keep perspective, recognize the good in your enemies and the bad in your friends.
    "--you can't conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him." - Robert A. Heinlein, Revolt in 2100

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Hatboro, Pennsylvania
    (Montgomery County)
    Posts
    304
    Rep Power
    226058

    Default Re: High Court Refuses to Hear Phila. Gun Ordinance Case

    Quote Originally Posted by -JD- View Post
    In a sense, it does make sense (according to the rules of "standing").

    The "package" aspect is irrelevant; each statute stands alone.

    The two that were allowed to continue (being challenged) were blanket prohibitions on the otherwise lawful actions of all persons, therefore everyone has standing.

    The other three apply only to persons in specific circumstances, so they would have to be challenged by people impacted under those circumstances.
    I understand that's what the courts said. I just disagree with their determination that all the ordinances were not "ripe for judicial determination." All the ordinances violate the preemption clause in the Firearms Act, and the prior court rulings on preemption. The city had not yet taken steps to enforce any of them, but could at any time if the courts allowed them to stand. To me, that's sufficient to provide standing to any citizen potentially affected by any of the ordinances. But I recognize that the trial court, the Commonwealth Court and (by its silence) the PA Supreme Court say otherwise. One of many reasons why I'd never make it as a judge (another being that I'm not a lawyer).

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. SCOTUS To Hear Case Of Strip Searched Student
    By dc dalton in forum General
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: January 23rd, 2009, 03:20 PM
  2. United States District Court-Phila.
    By Siobhra in forum General
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: August 30th, 2008, 09:30 AM
  3. Supreme Court Will Hear D.C. Guns Case
    By phillyd2 in forum General
    Replies: 247
    Last Post: June 12th, 2008, 11:34 AM
  4. DC Appeals Court will not re-hear case
    By bluetick in forum General
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: May 9th, 2007, 09:06 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •