Pittsburgh Wants to Sue to End State Preemption of Firearms Laws

[Didnotcomply89]

I did not see this topic being discussed when using the search feature, so here is the thread...

https://www.wtae.com/article/pittsbu...oting/25026579

Corey O'Connor of the Pittsburgh City Council speaks to local media outlets (not effectively) calling for a ban on 'assault rifles' within the city. I say 'non-effectively' because he cannot form a coherent sentence on the issue let along produce any facts to back up his claims.

Assault rifles are one -- you know, something with the amount of bullets and casings and things like that -- and then background. I mean, we're hitting on a number of different issues

At a neutral point of argument- I am not sure what Connor is calling for.

'Assault rifles', which are select-fire weapons (capable of discharging multiple rounds with one trigger pull) have been heavily restricted to civilians since 1986 when the restrictions were championed by conservative sweetheart Ronald Reagan. Any 'assault rifle' or 'automatic weapon' with an auto sear produced AFTER 1986 cannot be sold to civilians. These 'assault rifles' were not used in any of the recent attacks. The only time that comes to mind where an 'assault rifle' was used in a crime were the 90's Hollywood heists.

O'Connor hints that 'assault rifles' have an 'amount of bullets and casings'. That is true of any firearm- they typically fire a cartridge that contains a bullet and a casing. When he says 'and then background', I have no clue what he is talking about. His statements are confusing and highlight that he has no clue what he is talking about. The article by WTAE goes on to describe further mumblings by Pittsburgh's mayor and city council stating the need to regulate (ban) 'assault style' weapons. On a neutral point of argument- this needs to be explained. I have no idea what he is talking about.

The plan is to get Pittsburgh to join forces with other cities- such as Lancaster and Philadelphia- to sue the Commonwealth government to strip it of its pre-emption rights. 'Preemption' means that the state of Pennsylvania has the sole authority (likely notwithstanding federal law) to regulate firearms, ammunition and their sales. Pittsburgh believes it is 'their right' to restrict these weapons. This type of lawmaking is known as 'patchwork laws', where gun laws vary from one town to the next- placing an onerous burden on the people. This is currently how gun laws work in the territory of California. Pittsburgh has provided no evidence that stripping the state of preemption will make us all safer.

FOAC [firearm owners against crime] calls Pittsburgh's efforts 'ridiculous'. I agree.

Personally I think the idea is ludicrous at best and dangerous at the worst. According to the Pennsylvania State Constitution, the right to keep and bear arms 'shall not be questioned'. Furthermore, the 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution prevents the federal government from infringing on the right to keep and bear arms, with the States and local governments being incorporated into that rule as well. Pittsburgh has no legal standing or merit to challenge state law. It must affect change of state law at the legislative level within the PA Congress.

That is where WE as gun owners need to push back. You need to contact your representatives as well as the city of Pittsburgh and tell them 'no'. We MUST push back against this, even if Pittsburgh's effort is half hearted and weak. When I said I 'did not understand what O'Connor was talking about' I could see through what he was trying to say. He wants a ban on semi-automatic rifles, and he doesn't want you to have them.

https://www.wtae.com/article/pittsbu...oting/25026579

[Hawk]

Once he is schooled as to the reality of what it will take in achieving his agenda, it will die.

[JenniferG]

The only way to stop this constant onslaught is to attach more abortion restrictions to any of the bills that come up.

[GunLawyer001]

The Left is famous for choosing rigged battles, shopping for the right judges and creating bad precedent. If they sue to overturn state preemption, who will defend the law, and how does he personally feel about guns?

[Emptymag]

Hey assholes! At least he's trying to DO something to stop gun violence!

What are YOU doing? Probably buying more guns that you'll just shoot yourself with, or go on a racist mass killing rampage!

Mr Rogers HATES YOU! I don't want you to be MY NEIGHBOR!

RARRRRRRRR!!!

[Krichardson]

LOL!....now,that's tellin em.

[WhiteFeather]

The Left is famous for choosing rigged battles, shopping for the right judges and creating bad precedent. If they sue to overturn state preemption, who will defend the law, and how does he personally feel about guns?

As most of you know its the PA attorney general office to defend the state in such lawsuits and court challenges about state law.

unforunatily for us elections have consequences.... the PA attorney is currently Josh Shapiro which has a lot public records in supporting, voting and lobbying for more gun control.

so don't expect any vigorous defense or even really trying to win

mostly expect what Gun Lawyer stated to happen with controlling the case through courts

[Pilot321]

How are any gun laws beyond the Second Amendment Constitutional? Aren't all the state, local, and Fed laws just infringements? Just shows you how corrupt our courts have been over the decades.

[PHL9mm]

The only way to stop this constant onslaught is to attach more abortion restrictions to any of the bills that come up.

That'll turn 'save the children' on it's ass.

[KPShooting]

There are 130 different municipalities in Allegheny county alone. Imagine trying to navigate that patchwork if they all have the ability to ban scary guns in their own little fiefdoms. Imagine getting dinged with a felony because you drove through Wilmerding with an AR and someone saw it in your backseat. Fuck that.