Pittsburgh Mayor Bill Peduto pushing for bans on assault weapons and more.

[scruff]

That's what I was thinking.

Sounds like a PR win-win to me. Either the city would have to explain that the law doesn't actually ban assault rifles, or they'd look like cucks for not enforcing their own law.

[Mike_Golf]

Looks like they are baiting gun owners to load their weapons in defiance of the ordinance. That might give them the optics they want to portray us in a bad light.

[Mr_Gixxer]

Already thinking of sign boards.

"Yes, it's loaded"

And

"It's useless when it's empty"

[marinville]

So if I'm reading that correctly, protesters could carry slung rifles with empty mags inserted, and not be in violation. But the optics on TV would be just as good, because the sheeple actually think that the law banned "assault rifles".

I believe that would still constitute brandishing.

C. For purposes of this Section, "use" of an assault weapon does not include possession, ownership, transportation or transfer. "Use" of an assault weapon shall include, but is not limited to:
1. Discharging or attempting to discharge an assault weapon;
2. Loading an assault weapon with ammunition;
3. Brandishing an assault weapon;
4. Displaying a loaded assault weapon;
5. Pointing an assault weapon at any person; and
6. Employing an assault weapon for any purpose prohibited by the laws of Pennsylvania or of the United States.

Let's not pussy foot around with this folks. We shouldn't be looking for loopholes, we should be standing up and saying firmly, fuck you and fuck this. This can not be permitted to stand.

Here, if this doesn't piss you off, I don't know what else to say:

§ 1103.08 FINDINGS AND PURPOSES
A. For the purposes of this Chapter, the City Council does hereby find that:
1. The first duty of the governments of the City of Pittsburgh and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is to protect their people; and
2. As demonstrated by the following findings and purposes, gun violence presents a significant and undeniable public safety risk to the people of Pittsburgh and Pennsylvania, and both the City and the Commonwealth have a moral imperative to take lawfully available steps to reduce gun violence; and
3. Empirical study and recent history demonstrate that assault weapons and large capacity magazines should be prohibited, because they present an unacceptable and needless public safety risk. Prohibitions of assault weapons and large capacity magazines are correlated with reductions in mass shootings, and the use of assault weapons and large capacity magazines results in a higher number of fatalities and injuries during mass shootings and other serious crimes, including murders of police officers. Shooters using assault weapons and large capacity magazines can fire more rounds more quickly than shooters using other guns more suitable for self-defense, and fire rounds with greater destructive capacity. That tragic truth has been proven and re-proven in mass shootings around the country, including on October 27, 2018, at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh. Especially in a crowded urban jurisdiction like this one, there is no legitimate need for assault weapons and large capacity magazines that can justify the consequences of tolerating the proliferation of military-style weaponry in the community; and
4. The United States Supreme Court has recognized that the right protected by the Second Amendment is not absolute. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has recognized likewise with regard to Article I, section 21 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. Courts in many jurisdictions have thus upheld prohibitions on assault weapons, large capacity magazines, and other weaponry that poses a particular threat to public safety, which leave many other options for self-defense and other legitimate uses of firearms; and
5. The City Council recognizes that 18 Pa. C.S. § 6120(a) and 53 Pa. C.S. § 2962(g) restrict municipal regulation of ownership, possession, transfer, and transportation of firearms, ammunition, and ammunition components, and that Pennsylvania courts, including the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, have concluded that municipalities have no authority to wholly prohibit ownership, possession, transportation and transfer of assault weapons under existing Pennsylvania law; and
6. The City Council also recognizes its responsibility to respect governing law, and thus may not impose a prohibition on ownership, possession, transfer or transportation of assault weapons unless and until governing law allows it to become effective; and
7. A Second Class City has the power under 53 Pa. C.S. § 23131, and City Council has the authority under the City of Pittsburgh’s Home Rule Charter, “to regulate, prevent and punish the discharge of firearms, rockets, powder, fireworks, or any other dangerous, combustible material, in the streets, lots, grounds, alleys, or in the vicinity of any buildings;  to prevent and punish the carrying of concealed deadly weapons”; and
8. The City Council has authority under 53 Pa. C.S. § 3703 to “regulate or to prohibit and prevent the sale and use of fireworks, firecrackers, sparklers, and other pyrotechnics in such cities, and the unnecessary firing and discharge of firearms in or into the highways and other public places thereof, and to pass all necessary ordinances regulating or forbidding the same and prescribing penalties for their violation”; and
9. The City Council hereby calls upon and petitions the Pennsylvania General Assembly either to protect all Pennsylvanians by prohibiting assault weapons, or to allow the elected representatives of Pittsburgh and other municipalities to honor their own constituents’ justified demands for protection; and
10. The City Council has authority to legislate regarding the use of firearms, as distinguished from their ownership, possession, transfer, or transportation, in order to protect members of the public; and
11. Appropriate restrictions on the use of assault weapons will promote public safety, even if not as completely as a prohibition, both by imposing criminal liability on those who would use assault weapons in public spaces and by allowing police officers to intercede earlier and deter future tragedies.

They think they can re-define USE of firearms from simply discharge to basically anything they don't like: transporting them uncased in public, loading them, brandishing. Fuck these fucking fuckers, basically.

[Mr_Gixxer]

Even if "use" was only "discharging", according to Prince Law Firm even THAT is protected by preemption.

[scruff]

I believe that would still constitute brandishing.


Let's not pussy foot around with this folks. We shouldn't be looking for loopholes, we should be standing up and saying firmly, fuck you and fuck this. This can not be permitted to stand.

Here, if this doesn't piss you off, I don't know what else to say:



They think they can re-define USE of firearms from simply discharge to basically anything they don't like: transporting them uncased in public, loading them, brandishing. Fuck these fucking fuckers, basically.

Yeah, well, forgive me for not loading mine. One citation at a time.

[Justin///M]

They specifically talk about display separate from brandishing. Carrying a slinged rifle is not brandishing.

[marinville]

I'm not giving these fuckers an inch. Not one single concession.

[streaker69]

Two things, exactly what is this law supposed to address in this form? Seems as though it's more geared towards prohibiting the 1st amendment than anything else.

Second, you have nothing to worry about, the police will never enforce such an obviously illegal law, right?

[scruff]

Two things, exactly what is this law supposed to address in this form? Seems as though it's more geared towards prohibiting the 1st amendment than anything else.

Second, you have nothing to worry about, the police will never enforce such an obviously illegal law, right?

If Robert Bowers kept his rifle unloaded until he entered the synagogue, would the cops have rushed in with a citation pad?