SB497 signed by Governor yesterday!!!

[chrisjp]

City of third class reenactment signed with new wording to protect preemption. I am sure glad we have this lawyer working on our side!! Read here. http://blog.princelaw.com/2014/03/20...m-protections/

[Qtrborecrazy]

Just like with the anti's, I'll take every little inch we can get.

[chrisjp]

with as much disdain and spite most members commented on the lack of knowledge, skill, and general negativity about the Erie Case, the fact it was won, footnote number 9 calling as a end around for city's, and their lawyer assisted PAFOC in REWORDING the reenactment so that ALL Pennsylvanians can be further protected in our title 18 ~6120 preemption protections, i believe this run on sentence shows the epitome of what this forum truly represents and that is negativity is more fun for you than acknowledging there are people that take risks and make HUGE efforts for your RIGHTS but you folks would rather not acknowledge any of this....shame on you. you know who YOU are. be better than that. we need all firearm owners to be united not divided.

[phillyd2]

i believe this run on sentence shows the epitome of what this forum truly represents and that is negativity is more fun for you than acknowledging there are people that take risks and make HUGE efforts for your RIGHTS but you folks would rather not acknowledge any of this....shame on you. you know who YOU are. be better than that. we need all firearm owners to be united not divided.

I really hate riddles. Do you want to be more specific on who you are calling out?

[jerkin]

You're certainly entitled to your opinion. As for nobody responding to your original post it is my opinion that it is because everybody but a select few of you believe your lawyer has done more harm than good for Pennsylvania firearm owners and really don't care to hash it out all over again. I wasn't going to respond to the original post at all but since you insist on bringing it back up to the top I will. This will be my only reply.

[lourendo]

I really hate riddles. Do you want to be more specific on who you are calling out?

I was thinking that myself.

[Emptymag]

I really hate riddles. Do you want to be more specific on who you are calling out?

Phil specifically would be my guess - as well as anyone else who wasn't aboard the Erie train.


I'll wait for an explanation of the "good news" to see if it really IS good news, or just more of the same.
(And I don't consider the link provided to be the most reliable source of info)

[jim-analog]

Greetings,

Chris, I *think* this is good news, but reading this section from your link:

"Regulate Discharge of Guns and Deadly Weapons.–To the extent permitted by Federal and [other State] law, council may regulate, prohibit, prevent the discharge of guns and prevent the carrying of concealed deadly weapons. (emphasis added = [xx])"

Would it not have made sense AND also NOT given any "out" by stating "may NOT", rather than "may"? OR, simply stop the sentence after "discharge of guns" and get rid of the ability to regulate the carry aspect completely.

Not being a lawyer, guess I don't fully understand it, but it looks like there may still be enough "wiggle room" in the statute that further issues could confront us. If you or someone else could help explain this to me, I'd really appreciate it.

Regards, Jim

City of third class reenactment signed with new wording to protect preemption. I am sure glad we have this lawyer working on our side!! Read here. http://blog.princelaw.com/2014/03/20...m-protections/

[streaker69]

I've read the press release and the changes to the actual law, I'm just not really seeing how this addresses the footnote 9 issue. Maybe someone could explain it?

[GunLawyer001]

I've read the press release and the changes to the actual law, I'm just not really seeing how this addresses the footnote 9 issue. Maybe someone could explain it?

It doesn't address Footnote 9, that's a separate issue (the one I predicted in 2006). Most of us were being polite and not raining on his parade, letting him savor what was a nice win without dredging up the previous expensive net loss.

This was a different problem, one that would have arisen with or without the Erie fiasco. When a law initially says "you may regulate this" then is superseded by a law saying "you may NOT regulate this", the latest law wins. What FOAC did, through Kim Stolfer's extensive network of power players, is prevent the renewal of the 3rd class city statute from acting as a "latest law" trump card that would allow 3rd class cities to enact criminal statutes against firearms possession, on their city-owned property or elsewhere.

This does nothing to fix the can of worms opened up by the court with Footnote 9, which isn't about criminal statutes, it's about the "policies" against guns on city-owned property.

I'm not letting out any secrets here, the other side has lawyers who can read the laws.