HB 1541 - Here's a good one!

[Brick]

I am certain everyone will appreciate and voice their support for this bill:

THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF PENNSYLVANIA
HOUSE BILL No. 1541
Session of 2009

INTRODUCED BY METCALFE, BAKER, BENNINGHOFF, BOYD, BROOKS, BURNS,
CAUSER, CLYMER, CREIGHTON, CUTLER, DENLINGER, EVERETT,
FAIRCHILD, FLECK, GIBBONS, GOODMAN, GRELL, GROVE, HARRIS,
HELM, HESS, HICKERNELL, KAUFFMAN, KOTIK, MENSCH, METZGAR,
MILLARD, MOUL, MUSTIO, PYLE, RAPP, READSHAW, ROAE, ROCK,
ROHRER, S. H. SMITH, STABACK, STERN, STEVENSON, SWANGER,
TURZAI AND VULAKOVICH,

MAY 26, 2009
REFERRED TO COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY, MAY 26, 2009

AN ACT

1 Amending Title 18 (Crimes and Offenses) of the Pennsylvania
2 Consolidated Statutes, in firearms and other dangerous
3 articles, further providing for limitation on the regulation
4 of firearms and ammunition.
5 The General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
6 hereby enacts as follows:
7 Section 1. Section 6120 of Title 18 of the Pennsylvania
8 Consolidated Statutes is amended by adding a subsection to read:
9 § 6120. Limitation on the regulation of firearms and
10 ammunition.
11 * * *
[U]12 (a.2) Remedies for unlawful regulation.--Notwithstanding any
13 other provision of law, upon finding that a county, municipality
14 or township in any manner regulated the lawful ownership,
15 possession, transfer or transportation of firearms, ammunition
16 or ammunition components in violation of subsection (a) or 53
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Pa.C.S. § 2962(g) (relating to limitation on municipal powers),
2 a court shall direct the county, municipality or township to pay
3 actual damages and reasonable attorney fees and costs to a party
4 who successfully challenges the regulation.[/U5 * * *
6 Section 2. This act shall take effect in 60 days.
20090HB1541PN1907
- 2 -

So if you are in favor of this proposed law. Contact your State House of Representatives member and urge them to support this bill and get it out of committee.

[WhiteFeather]

Rep Daryl Metcalfe announced this publicly on April 21 Second Amendment Second to None Rally in Harrisburg to deal with "criminal" city council and "others" that violate state laws and will hold them accountable for their illegal actions.

Go...GO...Metcalfe


http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09112/964526-454.stm

Gun backers move to head off controls
Lawmaker responds to call for stricter rules
Wednesday, April 22, 2009

John Sigler, president of the National Rifle Association address the crowd during a gun rights rally in the Capitol rotunda yesterday.Pittsburgh officials begged the state yesterday for stricter gun rules, but instead they saw the political firepower of gun owners aimed at them.

In the wake of the April 4 killings of three police officers in Stanton Heights, City Council unanimously passed a resolution asking the General Assembly to allow municipalities to pass their own gun laws and to join the city in requiring that owners report loss or theft of guns.

Not so fast, said state Rep. Daryl Metcalfe, R-Cranberry, who offered a different idea: legislation to make municipalities pay groups that successfully challenge local gun ordinances in court.

He said his bill is meant to "financially deter and/or punish" municipalities that "blatantly violate" state law. The state code doesn't let localities "regulate the lawful ownership, possession, transfer or transportation of firearms."

"This is ludicrous," said city Councilman Bruce Kraus, when informed of Mr. Metcalfe's effort.

"This is just an attempt to bully municipalities into submission."

Last week, Mayor Luke Ravenstahl joined Gov. Ed Rendell in urging Congress to reinstate a lapsed ban on assault weapons and asked the General Assembly to pass a lost-and-stolen gun reporting law and allow local firearms regulation -- just what council sought yesterday.

"I think it's critically important for us to have the ability as local governments to enact local gun ordinances as we see fit," said Mr. Ravenstahl, acknowledging that the General Assembly needs to act first.

"If [Mr. Metcalfe] and the entire General Assembly weren't moved by the events here on April 4, and don't realize that these types of weapons need to be out of the hands of criminals and we need to make sure that local gun laws are put in place, I don't know what will" move them, the mayor said.

Some seemed moved yesterday, but not in the direction city officials wanted.

Hundreds of gun owners filled the Capitol rotunda and hallways for the fourth annual "Right to Keep and Bear Arms" rally. Mr. Metcalfe was joined by Reps. Mike Turzai and Dom Costa, and state Sens. Jane Orie and Kim Ward.

A high-profile list of gun rights officials spoke at the rally, including National Rifle Association President John Sigler.

"Today, Second Amendment freedoms stand in a precarious position," said Mr. Sigler, referring to the right to bear arms.

If different towns across the state have different gun laws, there will be "a patchwork of contradictory laws," he said. "You could end up in jail because of a city ordinance you knew nothing about."

Mr. Metcalfe said gun owners in the state "will never tolerate the enactment of any gun control measure that leaves law-abiding citizens disarmed and defenseless against violent intruders, who in most cases obtain their weapons illegally."

Resistance to gun rules is strongest in rural communities, said Mr. Kraus, who authored the council resolution.

"Then perhaps it is time that we give certain powers to municipalities to enact their own responsible gun ownership rules," he said.

In November, council passed citywide legislation requiring the prompt reporting to police of the loss or theft of handguns. Members argued that "straw purchasers" with clean records were buying guns, selling them to criminals, and then claiming they were lost or stolen whenever the guns were used in crimes and recovered.

Warpt762x39 here is some of the proposed Pro Gun and Anti-Gun bill pending in Harrisburg converted to plain english and how it will effect gun owners in PA

http://acslpa.org/n-legislative/pa_p...egislation.htm

[Warpt762x39]

I should get the Rosetta Stone program for legalese. I keep trying to read some of these and my concentration goes right out the damn window. I wish they'd post a plain english version along with it. Lol

[cgbudde]

Time to contact my reps. I could support this.

[ChamberedRound]

I should get the Rosetta Stone program for legalese. I keep trying to read some of these and my concentration goes right out the damn window. I wish they'd post a plain english version along with it. Lol

This bill basically states:

If any town, county, etc. has an ordinance on the books which violates preemption, anyone who takes them to court AND WINS can have their attorney fees paid for by that town, county, etc.

It basically gives the regular citizen another course of action to remedy rouge local governments. Up until now, a person could inform the town they have a violation and request (or demand) that it be changed, but the town could just not comply. In such a case of non-compliance the only remedy is legal action, which is prohibitively expensive for most people. This bill attempts to remove the prohibitive expense by requiring the town to foot the bill if they are found to be in the wrong.

[Warpt762x39]

This bill basically states:

If any town, county, etc. has an ordinance on the books which violates preemption, anyone who takes them to court AND WINS can have their attorney fees paid for by that town, county, etc.

It basically gives the regular citizen another course of action to remedy rouge local governments. Up until now, a person could inform the town they have a violation and request (or demand) that it be changed, but the town could just not comply. In such a case of non-compliance the only remedy is legal action, which is prohibitively expensive for most people. This bill attempts to remove the prohibitive expense by requiring the town to foot the bill if they are found to be in the wrong.

I appreciate the translation. Thank you sir.

[PocketProtector]

I should get the Rosetta Stone program for legalese. I keep trying to read some of these and my concentration goes right out the damn window. I wish they'd post a plain english version along with it. Lol

And you're only 25, how bout us older farts ???

[Warpt762x39]

And you're only 25, how bout us older farts ???

I've always been really good with math and history. I do ok with writing essays and such. I can figure out most mechanical problems I may have. I learned I was pretty good at wiring household electrical circuits.

The two things I have never been any good at in any sense of the word is stock market/business type stuff, and understanding legalese.

I just can't wrap my brain around that kind of stuff.

[RoyJackson]

The downside is that the burden is still on the taxpayers rather then the elected goofballs who try to get these local laws through.
However, I reckon a group of taxpayers could file a "friend of the court" brief to put the burden (legal fees, damages, etc.) directly on the elected offiials since they knowingly violated or conspired to violate the state laws.
This is an important bill...it appears (to my suspicious eyes) that the local municipalities are using the death of a thousand cuts against the NRA.

[Brick]

This bill basically states:

If any town, county, etc. has an ordinance on the books which violates preemption, anyone who takes them to court AND WINS can have their attorney fees paid for by that town, county, etc.

It basically gives the regular citizen another course of action to remedy rouge local governments. Up until now, a person could inform the town they have a violation and request (or demand) that it be changed, but the town could just not comply. In such a case of non-compliance the only remedy is legal action, which is prohibitively expensive for most people. This bill attempts to remove the prohibitive expense by requiring the town to foot the bill if they are found to be in the wrong.

Good translation and analysis, but incomplete in that you left out an important part. Specifically: "a court shall direct the county, municipality or township to pay actual damages and reasonable attorney fees and costs to a party who successfully challenges the regulation".

The "damages" part places a penalty beyond attorney fees and court costs on the errant municipality. Although actual damages might not rise to the same level as "punative damages", it does noticably raise the stakes.