Bikelane Billy Not Giving Up

[pens87pgh]

Pittsburgh contends that an Allegheny County judge erred when he ruled that three controversial gun ordinances were illegal.

In briefs filed with Pennsylvania’s Commonwealth Court, the city argued that the ordinances sidestepped Pennsylvania’s superseding law prohibiting municipalities from regulating the ownership, possession, transfer and transportation of firearms.

“Public health research is on our side, Pittsburgh residents are on our side, and the law is on our side, too,” Mayor Bill Peduto said Monday. “It’s disappointing our efforts have had to come to this, but we’ll continue to show the court that our measures comply with every word of state law.”

In response to the 2018 killings of 11 people at the Tree of Life Synagogue in Squirrel Hill, Pittsburgh City Council last year approved three gun bills that Peduto signed into law.

One would ban the use of certain semiautomatic weapons, including assault rifles. A second would ban the use of ammunition and accessories, such as large capacity magazines capable of holding 10 rounds or more of ammunition. A third bill, dubbed “extreme risk protection,” would permit courts to temporarily remove guns from a person deemed to be a public threat.

The city argued that it has legal authority under the Home Rule Charter and state law to regulate the discharge of guns and use of certain accessories within its borders.


“It narrowly crafted and limited the operative portions of the ordinance only to prohibit the “use” of large capacity magazines and only in public places, except for in cases of lawful self-defense or hunting,” attorneys wrote in the briefs. “Residents may still carry or transport firearms fitted with large capacity magazines in public and they may use them in their homes or other private places.”

The city contends that Common Pleas Judge Joseph James erred in his five-page opinion granting three Second Amendment rights groups and three individuals a summary judgment that declared the ordinances illegal.

Joshua Prince, an attorney with Berks County-based Civil Rights Defense Firm, which represented the plaintiffs, said Pittsburgh is spending taxpayer money on a “frivolous appeal regarding its illegal ordinances.” He reiterated a call for Allegheny County District Attorney Stephen A. Zappala Jr. to file charges of official oppression against Peduto and members of council.

“The example that this sets for our youth — that it is acceptable to violate the law if you do not agree with it, instead of petitioning to have the law changed — is a stark reminder that the City and its elected officials believe they are above the law,” he said.

The city is represented by its Law Department and at no cost by attorneys from Everytown for Gun Safety, an organization that advocates against gun violence.

City officials for more than a decade have attempted to regulate firearms in response to gun violence, but their efforts have been stymied by the state preemption law. Officials believe the current ordinances can pass court review because they do not include an outright ban on firearms.

Second Amendment advocates contend the ordinances violate state law and the Pennsylvania and U.S. constitutions.

https://triblive.com/local/pittsburg...e-of-firearms/

He won't give up, not when Fuckhole Bloomberg keeps suppying the funds. Pittsburgh seriously needs to do better than this PoS.

[CallinSIC]

The city is represented by its Law Department and at no cost by attorneys from Everytown for Gun Safety, an organization that advocates against gun violence.


Bloomberg buying up our rights...

[Qtrborecrazy]

Story made FOX news this morning.

[God's Country]

No doubt attempting to ride the Wolf public health emergency train.

Fuck you potato head.

[Jhaydeno]

Maybe he should just move to VA and become Northup's minion. See ya!

[theshadow]

The city is represented by its Law Department and at no cost by attorneys from Everytown for Gun Safety, an organization that advocates against gun violence.


Bloomberg buying up our rights...

Doesn't the Bar and the courts have some ethical rule against "Officers of the Court" aka Attorneys providing less than legal advice?

[bill gray]

Ah yes. A threat to their law license and professional reputation might trigger some deep thinking.

[gnbrotz]

I love a spirited debate, and often word play or "wordsmithing" is a part of that. I'll say this: the attorneys are right in their argument that preemption does not bar them from regulating "use".

That said, the notion that state law would force them to allow you to possess some item, but still allow them to prohibit you from actually "using" that item is ridiculous. Imagine that scenario with something like "sports cars" or swimming pools larger than some specified capacity.

[Mr_Gixxer]

I love a spirited debate, and often word play or "wordsmithing" is a part of that. I'll say this: the attorneys are right in their argument that preemption does not bar them from regulating "use".

That said, the notion that state law would force them to allow you to possess some item, but still allow them to prohibit you from actually "using" that item is ridiculous. Imagine that scenario with something like "sports cars" or swimming pools larger than some specified capacity.

I've posted this before but I'll repeat. Use in terms of "discharge" was protected in Dillon v. City of Erie, 83 A.3d 467 (Cmwlth. 2014) and again in FOAC v. Lower Merion Township 151 A.3d 1172 (Pa. Cmwlth. Ct. 2016). But Joshua Prince would know more about this.

[pens87pgh]

I'd be very curious to hear Joshua's take on this, but I'm sure he can't say much since it's all pending. Gunlawyer maybe?