Philly Now blog entry

[morebbqplease]

http://blogs.philadelphiaweekly.com/...-your-gun-laws

When M. Nutt says he’s going to ban guns, the PA Supreme Court listens! Sorta!

The state supreme court ruled on Philadelphia’s gun ordinances this week, and here’s what’s up:

• The city is allowed to force its citizens to report a lost or stolen gun within 24 hours.
• Police are allowed to seize guns from those “considered to pose a risk to themselves or others.”
• Those subject to a protection-from-abuse order may not own a firearm within the city.
• Want an assault weapon? You’re good.
• Need to purchase more than one gun a month? No problem. Have as many as you want!

Here’s a little background to share with your friends at a cocktail or dance party:

In the wake of some awful gun violence in the city M. Nutt signed five new gun laws. This was back in April 2008. The Inquirer found, at the time, these laws, “defy the state legislature and legal precedent.”

The laws were similar to those mentioned above just ruled on by the state court, though at that time, assault weapons and the more-than-one-gun-a-month thing were outlawed. Hence, this current ruling is being seen as a win for both sides.

The problem here, according to the big-penis club (also known as the NRA) is that there may be severe challenges to some of these laws still, especially when someone comes under arrest for not reporting their lost or stolen handgun within 24 hours (and how does the court, exactly, prove you knew the moment you lost your piece?) Scott Shields is quoted by the Associated Press as saying, “As soon as they arrest somebody or charge somebody for failing to report a lost or stolen handgun, that ordinance, like the assault weapons ban or the one-gun-a-month ordinance will be stricken as well.”

M. Nutt’s been warned. He’s also been flagged by the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action as one of the “Mayors Against Illegal Guns,” which they call, “a front group to lobby Congress to oppose important pro-gun reforms and support new federal gun control restrictions,” begun by NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg. They add that M. Nutt and others may not know what they stand for, as “some mayors have joined or been duped into joining this anti-gun Bloomberg crusade.”

But if you’re a gun nut, don’t be surprised the mayor’s gone to bat against you. It was all in there in his promises when he was running. Here’s from his campaign website:

“I will work with City Council to pass pending legislation to enhance local gun control and with our state legislators to pass new laws to make Philadelphia and Pennsylvania safer from gun violence.”

“Council has drafted many ordinances asserting our authority to register firearms, limit their purchase, control their use and storage, and require they be reported in a timely manner if stolen. We should pass them and begin a negotiation with the Commonwealth over what rights we have to control our own destiny and protect our citizens from gun violence.”

“As Mayor I will become an active member of the Mayors Summit on Illegal Guns formed last summer by New York Mayor Bloomberg and Boston Mayor Menino.”

Gotta love a may who, ahem, sticks to his guns.

You wish this was over. We know you do. So, in spite of your Tea Patriot revolution, get ready for more fights over gun laws, especially if M. Nutt keeps hanging out with his *bff* M. Bloom.

[Devrbd]

What the hell is with the "M. Nutt" thing?!

That, plus the photo accompanying the article alone makes this guy an asshole.

[thefirstndsecond]

The reasons I want to move are stated above.

[twoeggsup]

The problem here, according to the big-penis club (also known as the NRA)...

First time my member... excuse me, membership has had this particular accusation.

[Deanimator]

First time my member... excuse me, membership has had this particular accusation.

"Big Penis Club"?

Sounds more like he has penis envy.

Anti-gunners are to a great extent, cowards ashamed of their own cowardice who wish to make their cowardice the norm, so that they no longer need to be ashamed of it.

[wa3ra]

Actually, they tossed the two that were blatantly illegal, and REFUSED TO RULE on the other laws because those suing the city did not have legal 'standing' to bring the case.

The first two codicils can't be challenged until somebody is arrested for violating one of them, although on their face that are unenforceable because they violate state law, the third is just a waste of paper, because it is ALREADY illegal to possess firearms while the subject of a PFA order (whether fair or not, it is the law).