Gun rights groups oppose Pittsburgh's proposed G-20 rules!

[Bravo Zulu]

Gun rights organizations today came out against a proposed city of Pittsburgh ordinance, driven by the G-20 Summit, that would bar anyone from carrying numerous items, including 37 types of firearms, if they appear to be trying to disrupt police crowd dispersal.

"They may try to call this some other thing, but by every reasonable account, and reasonable review of what they intend to do, this is a gun ban, plain and simple," said Andrew Arulanandam, director of public affairs for the National Rifle Association. "And the fact that they want to leave it open-ended, I think, is the most ominous point."

He said passage of the ordinance could force the NRA to reconsider bringing its annual meeting, which can draw tens of thousands of members, to Pittsburgh in 2011.

Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09240/993917-100.stm#ixzz0PVaMxaWA

[krispos42]

1. This will be interesting

The conflict between those that decry police over-reach (especially during public demonstrations) and those that want to sharply restrict guns... and many people hold both views simultaniously.

[GunGuyinPA]

8. Unconstitutional

From the PA Constitution:

Right to Bear Arms Section 21.

The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State <b>shall not be questioned.

[proteus_lives]

10. They may experience brain-lock.

It would be fun to watch. ;-)

[TheWraith]

2. Pittsburgh is going to lose this one.

Simply put, they can't override state laws, and state laws permit open carry.

[ieoeja]

3. Pennsylvania has a state law forbidding a city from overriding the open carry law?

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

4. Many states have preemtion involving firearms statutes.

This means a local law cannot enact a more strict law than the state law. It serves to create a uniform set of restrictions state-wide and thus prevent dozens of ordinary citizens from inadvertantly breaking laws (because no-one can possibly know ALL the separate laws of ALL individual cities and counties).

Imagine the firearms laws changing 3 or 4 times just on the way to work for someone with a concealed carry permit.
Or imagine traffic laws changing from municipalit to municipality. It would be a nightmare.

Preemption is generally a good thing, especially when legal screw-ups with friearms usually involve heavy fines and jail time.

[krispos42]

11. It's fairly common

Minnesota and California do as well, for example. It's why San Fransisco's attempts to ban handguns within city limits keep getting shot down.

Other states such as New York and Illinois have this patchwork of laws that vary by community. It can be a pain in the ass.

[Euromutt]

14. It's more common than not, in fact

IIRC, something in the order of 38 states have pre-emption statutes.

[SteveM]

12. Federalism applies to states and their relations with the Fed, not localities...

Cities are creatures of the various states, and are given wide latitude to pass local ordinances -- as long as they comport with state constitutional provisions and state law. Any exception to this "inferior" relationship would have to be approved -- by the state. This is why various efforts by cities to ban or restrict firearms use within cities regularly run afoul with state law and are summarily tossed. In fact, some states specifically legislate a city's parameters to prevent carving out municipal exceptions to state law.

[RamboLiberal]

5. They actually beat back the NRA

PITTSBURGH, PA - July 21 - Senior Judge R. Stanton Wettick of the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County today threw out the National Rifle Association’s lawsuit against the City of Pittsburgh which sought to strike down the city’s ordinance to prevent gun trafficking by requiring the reporting of lost or stolen guns. The Brady Center’s Legal Action Project argued the case in court and is representing Pittsburgh pro bono.

Daniel Vice, Senior Attorney at the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, who argued in court on behalf of Pittsburgh, said, “We’re pleased the court threw out the NRA’s baseless lawsuit. The NRA should end its hypocrisy in claiming to support enforcing the laws on the books and then suing to strike down common sense gun laws. It’s too easy for dangerous criminals to get deadly weapons.”

Judge Wettick agreed with the Brady Center’s arguments that the NRA and individual gun owners lacked standing to bring the case. The law the court upheld today requires that gun owners notify police when their gun is lost or stolen, which aids police and law-abiding gun owners by enabling police to quickly investigate and retrieve stolen guns. The ordinance also prevents gun traffickers from falsely claiming that their guns were “stolen” after guns they illegally sold are recovered at crime scenes and traced back to them.

Stolen guns represent a significant source of trafficked guns, with 500,000 guns stolen from private citizens each year. About one of every six trafficked guns are guns stolen from residences. Guns are stolen in Pennsylvania at a rate of 12 guns per 1,000 households.

Pittsburgh is one of eight cities and towns in Pennsylvania that has enacted a law requiring the reporting of lost or stolen guns. The Brady Center has stated that it will assist pro bono any Pennsylvania jurisdiction in defending these laws against NRA challenges.

http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2009/07/21-13

So far the state courts haven't weighed in on this. They may get away with the G-20 attempt if there isn't time to challenge it.

[X_Digger]

6. Well, lack of standing doesn't really mean 'beat back'..

When a gun owner gets charged with breaking this law, this will come back up.

[DonP]

7. The Joyce Foundations gets its moneys worth?

"The Brady Center has stated that it will assist pro bono any Pennsylvania jurisdiction in defending these laws against NRA challenges."

That offer can run up the legal bills real quick if every little town mayor decides to make an issue for himself. After all, it's not like it's their money that's getting spent..

Well, besides paying Helmke and Hennigan way too much for their "accomplishments", the Joyce people will have something to put in their annual report as a success. At least until the state court overturns the ruling.

I'm all in favor of reporting lost or stolen anything, guns, cars, garden hoses et. al. I'm just not sure you should be made a criminal if you don't realize something was stolen or report it in what some local cop considers a timely manner.

I mean how in the hell do you enforce this? You recover a gun at a crime scene, go to the last known owner and he says "Oh my heavens, I had no idea that was gone. I thought it was still in my sock drawer!" How do you prove it wasn't? Cop intuition?

[Euromutt]

13. That's some tendentious interpretation there

As X-Digger rightly points out, the case was dismissed on the grounds that plaintiffs lacked standing. I.e. the court did not (as the article incorrectly asserts) uphold the law, it merely ruled that the plaintiffs did not have grounds to challenge it (because they hadn't been incurred damage as a result of it, yet). It's worth noting that the finding of lack of standing is frequently used as a dodge by courts to avoid having to hand down a verdict they suspect will be unpopular.

Personally (and IANAL and all that) I'm not wild about the limitations on standing, because it all too often means that you can't challenge the existence of a law unless and until you have broken it, with all the potential attendant repercussions. It also guarantees that a disproportionate portion of lawsuits that result in verdicts regarding weapons laws are ones in which the plaintiff is an unsavory character who is more likely than the average citizen of wanting guns for nefarious purposes (e.g. Jack Miller of U.S. v. Miller fame, and Timothy Emerson of U.S. v. Emerson fame).

The Daniel Vice quote is just so much fact-free post-verdict blathering of the kind a few too many lawyers like to engage in. You know, claiming that "my client has been utterly vindicated" when the guy's obviously a sleazebag who got off on some technicality. Nice mischaracterization of the NRA's position, too; the NRA has long argued that it's pointless to add new legislation when the existing legislation is being inadequately enforced. There's nothing hypocritical about their opposing new legislation.

[AtheistCrusader]

9. I don't get it...

If you're going to actually use these weapons to resist police crowd dispersal, I doubt a law against doing so is going to make one whit of difference.

It's not like you can set these weapons to 'stun'.

[Hoopla Phil]

15. I would think there are current laws to take care of this. Why more?