Gun bill is bad news for municipalities

**streaker69** · June 12th, 2012, 11:15 AM

http://lancasteronline.com/article/l...ipalities.html

Lancaster City Council passed its ordinance in 2009 in an attempt to address illegal gun sales to convicted felons and others who are prohibited from having a gun. After such a "straw man" purchase, the seller might claim the gun had been lost or stolen.
The initiative from municipalities across the state came after the General Assembly failed to pass a statewide measure in 2008.
Along with the 30 municipalities that adopted ordinances, another 19 approved resolutions calling on legislators to pass a state lost-or-stolen gun-reporting law.
Lancaster Mayor Rick Gray, who backed the local initiative, said the bill would invite frivolous lawsuits.
Under the measure, a municipality could be required to pay the legal expenses of and damages to those who file lawsuits against it, even if the municipality repeals its ordinance.
Even if the municipality was successful in court, it would still lose, Gray said, because of the legal costs of defending ordinances.

I guess having municipalities actually being held responsible for passing illegal laws is bad.

**MostlyHarmless** · June 12th, 2012, 11:24 AM

Originally Posted by streaker69

I guess having municipalities actually being held responsible for passing illegal laws is bad.

They are used to immunity. This is a major (or mayor?) disturbance in the force!

Jan

**internet troll** · June 12th, 2012, 11:24 AM

"Lancaster City Council passed its ordinance in 2009 in an attempt to address illegal gun sales to convicted felons and others who are prohibited from having a gun. After such a "straw man" purchase, the seller might claim the gun had been lost or stolen.
The initiative from municipalities across the state came after the General Assembly failed to pass a statewide measure in 2008.
Along with the 30 municipalities that adopted ordinances, another 19 approved resolutions calling on legislators to pass a state lost-or-stolen gun-reporting law.
Lancaster Mayor Rick Gray, who backed the local initiative, said the bill would invite frivolous lawsuits.
Under the measure, a municipality could be required to pay the legal expenses of and damages to those who file lawsuits against it, even if the municipality repeals its ordinance.
Even if the municipality was successful in court, it would still lose, Gray said, because of the legal costs of defending ordinances."

So basically what they are saying is that they either did not know that they could not pass ordinances or did not care and did it anyway. Now they are crying because they could be held responsible for not following the law just the way you or I could be held responsible for not following the law. And they could still lose by winning trying to defend themselves the same way you or I could lose by winning if we were to fight an unjust traffic ticket.

For some reason I don't feel bad for them.

**OldSchoolPC** · June 12th, 2012, 11:34 AM

For a municipality to say FU to a law that preempts their actions, is as immoral as the state passing laws which conflict with the constitution. I think there should be a an (enforced) law about lawmakers (local and state) creating laws that they know are illegal, or unconstitutional. If making a law is SOOOO important but conflicts with the constitution, make a constitutional amendment. If you can't get the support to make such an amendment, I guess that the unconstitutional law isn't all that good for the people after all. Anyway, now I am rambling. sorry.

**dsnover** · June 13th, 2012, 10:43 AM

For firearms pre-emption, I agree with this. Other stuff, not so sure. Here's why:

The State tends to write a boatload of stuff into law that pre-empts local government. However, in many cases, the stuff is poorly advertised, is written intentionally vague, etc, and so there are times when the local government simply addresses an issue locally because it had no clue that there was a preempting law at the State level.

Electronic documentation is improving the ability to search for applicable law, but it isn't quite as simple as typing a word and looking to see which legislation might apply. With so many laws written in such a way as to be almost intentionally vague, its a legal minefield.

But again, as far as firearms preemption, yes, municipalities need to be held accountable in a real and tangible way. And really, on any issue which involves a 'fundamental' RIGHT..

**streaker69** · June 13th, 2012, 10:46 AM

Originally Posted by dsnover

For firearms pre-emption, I agree with this. Other stuff, not so sure. Here's why:

The State tends to write a boatload of stuff into law that pre-empts local government. However, in many cases, the stuff is poorly advertised, is written intentionally vague, etc, and so there are times when the local government simply addresses an issue locally because it had no clue that there was a preempting law at the State level.

Sorry, that is no excuse. All municipalities have legal counsel available to them. In many cases it's been seen that the legal counsel they've hired are just as corrupt as the council that passes illegal ordinances. It is the legal counsel's job to give accurate information to the council without bias, but too many times that hasn't happened.