Issues with a rally this coming June in Erie.

[Rblakely]

No you chose an elementary job comparison because you wanted to insult the person you felt was beneath you regarding this topic. No different than
insulting someone because their knowledge of firearms is less.

No need to back pedal because your normally sharp wit got the better of you.
The valid point you made was negated by a condescending remark. But that's OK because you made what in your mind was a valid point followed up by a personal attack. Perfectly acceptable because your points were indisputably valid.

Yes - the "parting shot" lessens the impact of what precedes it. The most important thing thing I have ever said was "I was mistaken". It was a "parting shot" insult, no one believes otherwise....moving on with our lives now.

[TaePo]

The confusion stems from a misunderstanding of the word "state".

The 13 colonies became independent states, once they shucked off King George the 3rd. "States" in the same way that France or Germany or Russia were states. Sovereign entities. And as states, they had inherent police powers, limited only by their constitutions, if they had them.

Police powers allow states to control the actions of the subjects. It's whay Obama and Pelosi think that Congress can enact any law that gets 51% of Congress to vote for it (Obama and Pelosi are wrong, of course, because the Feds have NO POLICE POWER, only the delegated powers that the states gave the new entity.)

So what we in PA have is a Commonwealth that was born with inherent police powers, circumscribed by Article 1, Sec. 21, stating that the People's right to keep and bear arms shall not be questioned. That's perfectly consistent with state preemption. It's even consistent with defining small sub-groups to be ineligible to own firearms, as long as "the people" at large aren't burdened with such questioning, and the burdens pass Strict Scrutiny review.

Whether that's consistent with requiring all citizens to get a license to carry in a vehicle, or concealed, is open to debate by reasonable people. But at least we've avoided the bans on "assault weapons" and standard capacity mags and "cop killer bullets" that our unfortunate brethren in other states suffer under without any corresponding benefit. And preemption clarifies that we don't suffer a patchwork of 2500+ sets of arbitrary gun laws and infringements.

Well, yes. But I still question it. Sometimes the simplest expression is the best.

We must recall (as you implied) that the states came first, followed by the Articles of Confederacy then eventually the Constitution and then the Bill of Rights enumerations. As such, the states figured most prominently and only recently do we see the Feds as a greater power. But States had Constitutions and many 'protected' the right to keep and bear arms in some manner or another for the citizens/individuals. But if any level of government recognizes individuals (people) and that the power of government is limited to specific powers yielded by the people, and that individuals have inherent rights; I can't see how any level of government can claim to be master over any individual right or power without the latter's specific, written consent. But again, I tend to become a little theoretical in my beliefs and some practicality may be lost in application. But I would rather err in this way than in any other manner lest the government get any more grandiose ideas than are really on the table.

I really do understand the seduction of state 'preemption' but I like to question such havens. I wonder how the founders would be split over state level 'controls' versus purer individual rights determinations. In other words, is the Bill of Rights a Federal preemption declaring individual rights inherent to the individual?

But, this digresses from the thread's original argument on footnote 9 which I think is moot for now though no less an interesting academic debate. (At least until it occurs in reality for an actual court ruling or legislative change)

I should hope we have a chance meeting in the future to discuss (Fed vs State vs Individual) over a beer, perhaps. Much more info can pass in a verbal exchange than in writing.

[jim-analog]

Greetings,

In the spirit of moving forward, please take a look at PA HB 2011. To strengthen pre-emption. I wasn't able to get the text to load, but here is the description page:

http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/...type=B&bn=2011

In the interim, here is the NRAs description:

"Contact your state Representative TODAY in support of House Bill 2011

House Bill 2011, important firearms preemption legislation, was introduced yesterday by pro-gun state Representative Mark Keller (R-86). If passed and enacted into law, HB 2011 would strengthen Pennsylvania’s firearms preemption law to further ensure firearm and ammunition laws are consistent throughout the state. This important bill has been referred to the House Judiciary Committee.

Title 18 Pa.C.S., Section 6120 of Pennsylvania law specifically states that "No county, municipality or township may in any manner regulate 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."

State firearms preemption was enacted by the Pennsylvania Legislature to avoid the possibility of 2,639 separate firearm laws across the Commonwealth. However, over recent years, nearly fifty local governments have enacted gun control ordinances in violation of the current state firearms preemption law.

The myriad of local firearm laws makes compliance very difficult and nearly impossible for responsible gun owners. This creates a situation where gun owners and sportsmen have difficulty even knowing about certain laws, much less understanding them. HB 2011 will correct this problem by preventing localities from imposing ordinances more restrictive than laws passed by the Pennsylvania Legislature by allowing anyone adversely affected by an ordinance, resolution, regulation, rule or practice to file suit against the county, municipality or township. An individual affected may also be awarded reasonable expenses by the court if the court rules in their favor or the regulation is repealed after the lawsuit is filed but before the final determination is made."

Please contact your reps and ask them to sign on, and thank those who already have.

Regards, Jim

[twency]

Greetings,

In the spirit of moving forward, please take a look at PA HB 2011. To strengthen pre-emption. I wasn't able to get the text to load, but here is the description page:

http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/...type=B&bn=2011

In the interim, here is the NRAs description:

"Contact your state Representative TODAY in support of House Bill 2011

House Bill 2011, important firearms preemption legislation, was introduced yesterday by pro-gun state Representative Mark Keller (R-86). If passed and enacted into law, HB 2011 would strengthen Pennsylvania’s firearms preemption law to further ensure firearm and ammunition laws are consistent throughout the state. This important bill has been referred to the House Judiciary Committee.

Title 18 Pa.C.S., Section 6120 of Pennsylvania law specifically states that "No county, municipality or township may in any manner regulate 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."

State firearms preemption was enacted by the Pennsylvania Legislature to avoid the possibility of 2,639 separate firearm laws across the Commonwealth. However, over recent years, nearly fifty local governments have enacted gun control ordinances in violation of the current state firearms preemption law.

The myriad of local firearm laws makes compliance very difficult and nearly impossible for responsible gun owners. This creates a situation where gun owners and sportsmen have difficulty even knowing about certain laws, much less understanding them. HB 2011 will correct this problem by preventing localities from imposing ordinances more restrictive than laws passed by the Pennsylvania Legislature by allowing anyone adversely affected by an ordinance, resolution, regulation, rule or practice to file suit against the county, municipality or township. An individual affected may also be awarded reasonable expenses by the court if the court rules in their favor or the regulation is repealed after the lawsuit is filed but before the final determination is made."

Please contact your reps and ask them to sign on, and thank those who already have.

Regards, Jim

I would support the addition of that language to the existing statute, but it won't do anything to solve the problem which Footnote 9 references. It adds a penalty for violation of the existing limitations, but it doesn't expand those limitations to clearly include municipalities acting in their capacity as property owners.

[longcall911]

Greetings,

In the spirit of moving forward, please take a look at PA HB 2011. To strengthen pre-emption. I wasn't able to get the text to load, but here is the description page:

http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/...type=B&bn=2011

In the interim, here is the NRAs description:

"Contact your state Representative TODAY in support of House Bill 2011

House Bill 2011, important firearms preemption legislation, was introduced yesterday by pro-gun state Representative Mark Keller (R-86). If passed and enacted into law, HB 2011 would strengthen Pennsylvania’s firearms preemption law to further ensure firearm and ammunition laws are consistent throughout the state. This important bill has been referred to the House Judiciary Committee.

Title 18 Pa.C.S., Section 6120 of Pennsylvania law specifically states that "No county, municipality or township may in any manner regulate 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."

State firearms preemption was enacted by the Pennsylvania Legislature to avoid the possibility of 2,639 separate firearm laws across the Commonwealth. However, over recent years, nearly fifty local governments have enacted gun control ordinances in violation of the current state firearms preemption law.

The myriad of local firearm laws makes compliance very difficult and nearly impossible for responsible gun owners. This creates a situation where gun owners and sportsmen have difficulty even knowing about certain laws, much less understanding them. HB 2011 will correct this problem by preventing localities from imposing ordinances more restrictive than laws passed by the Pennsylvania Legislature by allowing anyone adversely affected by an ordinance, resolution, regulation, rule or practice to file suit against the county, municipality or township. An individual affected may also be awarded reasonable expenses by the court if the court rules in their favor or the regulation is repealed after the lawsuit is filed but before the final determination is made."

Please contact your reps and ask them to sign on, and thank those who already have.

Regards, Jim

HB2011 is the moderate's alternative to Metcalfe's HB805. If people are going to request sponsorship, I'd ask that they consider pressing for HB805 instead.

Metcalfe is a proven friend of 2A and I trust his legislation more than the others.

[twency]

HB2011 is the moderate's alternative to Metcalfe's HB805. If people are going to request sponsorship, I'd ask that they consider pressing for HB805 instead.

Metcalfe is a proven friend of 2A and I trust his legislation more than the others.

Agreed, HB805 looks superior.

Still doesn't resolve the Footnote 9 ambiguity though. That will require a different fix.

[chrisjp]

thank you jim for that breath of fresh air

[markshere2]

Snip

Its not about how I "feel". Its about how *you* feel. And that's quite clear. You feel footnote 9 is binding.

Snip

1. feelings got squat to do with it
b. you got a lotta damn nerve telling him how he feels
Finally, you got a goofy definition of "win"
and
4th. lighten up, Francis!

[jim-analog]

Greetings,

Well, perhaps the optimum conclusion to all this would be a combination of the most important points from several bills into one; along with the inclusion of the short paragraph on footnote 9 that Gunlawyer posted a while back. Again, I don't know the process, but am willing to make the effort to get beyond this.

Unfortunately, Rep Clymer was unable to make it to the meeting Tuesday night, but I intend to speak with him this week. I can suggest bill combinations, etc. and get his opinion as to the viability of this and/or other approaches in the hope of putting this to bed.

Regards, Jim

Agreed, HB805 looks superior.

Still doesn't resolve the Footnote 9 ambiguity though. That will require a different fix.

[longcall911]

Agreed, HB805 looks superior.

Still doesn't resolve the Footnote 9 ambiguity though. That will require a different fix.

The layman's comparison that I did for the rest of the board of PA4SP is below. Please see my #11 and then consider its effect regarding 'footnote 9'.

Comparison of PA HB2011 to PA HB805

1. HB2011 changes the title of a.2 from Unlawful Regulation to Relief

2. HB2011 a.2 adds the word regulation

3. HB2011 a.2 adds the words any other action

4. HB2011 a.2 removes the words may file suit

5. HB2011 a.2 removes the words for all actual and consequential damages attributable to the violation

6. HB2011 a.2 changes what may be awarded as “Reasonable Expense” from actual damages and reasonable attorney fees, prejudgment liquidation damages, and postjudgment liquidation damages to whatever the court deems to be reasonable.

7. HB2011 a.2 removes the power to impose a civil penalty against the offending county or municipality of $5,000.00

8. HB2011 b replaces the definition of a “Person Adversely Affected” with a more simple, straightforward definition and does not seem (to this layman) to significantly alter the class of persons who would be eligible as being adversely affected.

9. HB2011 changes the definition of postjudgment liquidated damages from 3 times actual damages to whatever the court deems reasonable

10. HB2011 changes the definition of prejudgment liquidated damages from 2 times actual damages to whatever the court deems reasonable

11. HB2011 removes section 2 which expressly applies this law to any “ordinance, rule, resolution or policy” of political subdivision. In this layman’s view the original text of HB805 asserts supremacy of PA firearms law over any property rights that a political subdivision might claim by specifically referencing rules and policy.

12. HB2011 removes section 2 which includes the text before, on, or after this law goes into effect thereby removing the retroactive aspect of HB805.