Deprecated: mb_convert_encoding(): Handling HTML entities via mbstring is deprecated; use htmlspecialchars, htmlentities, or mb_encode_numericentity/mb_decode_numericentity instead in /var/www/html/wp-content/plugins/super-cool-ad-inserter/inc/scaip-shortcode-inserter.php on line 37
Yesterday, Pennsylvania’s Senate and House passed what opponents are calling “Sue Our Cities” bills (SB 5 and HB 671). This legislation would give the National Rifle Association and other organizations the power to sue cities that have passed gun-control measures they deem unconstitutional.
“The bills will almost certainly result in either the NRA or any member of the gun groups across the state suing our town,” says Rob Conroy, director of organizing for CeasFirePA, a nonprofit working to end gun violence. “Obviously, we at CeaseFirePA, and as responsible citizens, view this as a a huge problem.”
In 2008, Pittsburgh passed an ordinance requiring gun owners to report if their firearms are lost or stolen. While Mayor Bill Peduto pledged to enforce the legislation if elected, the ordinance has never been enforced. Peduto has said he has not enforced the ordinance because of the threat of a lawsuit, but the so-called “Sue Our Cities” bill would give organizations like the NRA the ability to sue cities even if they haven’t enforced legislation. They can face a lawsuit just for having laws like Pittsburgh’s lost-and-stolen ordinance on the books.
“While how much this will directly affect Pittsburgh taxpayers is fully hypothetical, it’s fair to say if a lawsuit were able to proceed without any successful constitutional challenges, taxpayers in Pittsburgh would be on the hook for not only the city’s legal costs, but also on the hook for paying the legal fees of the gun lobby if they were to prevail,” Conroy says. “The gun lobby has set this up so that taxpayers will essentially be giving donations to the gun lobby.”
The Senate legislation was sponsored by Sen. Wayne Langerholc (R-Clearfield) who, in a January 2017 memo, defended it saying:
“Where no uniform state laws are in place, the result can be chaotic, as restrictions change from one local jurisdiction to another. An overabundance of varying ordinances leads to citizens with no criminal intent being placed in danger of breaking restrictions where they don’t know they exist. Furthermore, it is unreasonable to require residents of Pennsylvania and citizens passing through from other states to be aware of every firearm ordinance as they pass through each local jurisdiction.
Specifically, this legislation would prevent local jurisdictions from imposing ordinances more restrictive than laws passed by the General Assembly. This legislation will also enhance and restore the original intent of the Uniform Firearms Act.”
(A memo on HB 671 included nearly identical language.)
SB 5 passed by a vote of 34 to 16. Locals Sen. Jay Costa (D-Forest Hills) and Sen. Wayne Fontana (D-Brookline) voted against the measure while Guy Reschenthaler (R-Jefferson Hills) and Sen. Randy Vulakovich (R-Shaler) voted in support.
HB 671 passed by a vote of 134 to 53. Local Rep. Dom Costa (D-Stanton Heights), who has come under fire for votes and positions on legislation in recent months, voted in favor of the legislation. But others like repsresentatives Ed Gainey (D-Lincoln-Lemington) and Adam Ravenstahl (D-Summerhill) voted against it.
“We believe that these bills are once again an illustration of just how far our state legislature is willing to bend, in this case, to the gun lobby at the expense of pretty much every other Pennsylvanian,” says Conroy. “We are pledging every day to fight to against this.”
While both pieces of legislation passed by a substantial margin, these votes don’t signify the end of the fight for activists like CeaseFirePA. Any legislation will still have to be signed by Gov. Tom Wolf.
“We certainly hope that Gov. Wolf will stand up and do the right thing regarding this. We know that in the past he has expressed an intent to do so,” Conroy says. “However, there is a substantial risk that this time around, there may be enough of a majority in both parts of our legislature to override the veto. It is on us the citizens to make sure our representatives do the right thing to protect our citizens.”
This article appears in Apr 19-25, 2017.
As a citizen harmed by the efforts of elected officials willing to thumb their noses at the state legislation, as if they have a higher authority, i can confidently tell you, no sir/madams, you are not above the law!! Your push for public safety, has nothing to do with protecting the citizens!! It has everything with pushing your personal, ILLEGAL agenda!! How dare you take taxpayer money to control the LAW ABIDING gun owner by doing ILLEGAL ordinances and making the TAXPAYER pay to push your agenda!! SHAME ON YOU AND YOUR EGOS!! The only person that you hurt is the law abiding citizens while you give criminsls a free pass to do their evil!!
The title and article itself are INCREDIBLY misleading. But that appears intentional, so I’ll just state the facts as simply as possible. Under PA law (and I’m told the PA Constitution as well), it is ILLEGAL for any county, or municipality (cities, towns, boroughs…) to enact ANY laws related to firearms. That is PA law. Cities CAN NOT make any local firearms laws. Therefore, when a city DOES pass a ‘law’ regarding firearms, they are violating Commonwealth law, and if they enforce it they are violating the rights of the citizen they enforced it upon. So what this law says is that if a city is breaking the law, and violates your rights, and then you (or the NRA, or the ACLU or NAACP or NAGR or any other group) sues the city for breaking the law and violating your rights, that city has to pay YOUR legal costs when they loose. They have to reimburse you the cost of fighting to defend the rights they violated. The alternative is a city breaking the law and violating your rights, then when you try to defend yourself, they use their ON STAFF lawyers to drag out any hearings and financially DESTROY the person fighting for their rights. Why wouldn’t they? If they piss away MILLIONS on defending themselves for breaking the law and violating your rights, what does it cost them? Nothing? They just take more money from the people of their city. So why WOULDN’T they violate your rights? Well, because it will cost them TWICE as much to accomplish nothing, again, if they lose. If they WIN, they don’t have to pay your costs… So if they REALLY think their law is valid, and they are not violating your rights, why would they care if they have to pay if they lose? If your ‘law’ is ‘legal’ you WON’T have to pay. Feel deceived yet? Personally, I think, rather than pass this law, it is FAR more appropriate to send state troopers to arrest the pittsburgh mayor and anyone else involved in ‘conspiring to violate your civil rights’ (which is EXACTLY what they did by passing that ‘law’ and any like it), but that’d never happen, becasue justice rarely finds those with power.
Aside from the question of what people think municipal law *should* be, Pennsylvania is a Dillons’s Rule state, also known as a “Mother, may I” state. Some states specify what municipalities *may not* do, and they may do anything not explicitly prohibited. Most states, including Pennsylvania, specify what municipalities *may* do, and they may not do anything that is not explicitly permitted.
The bottom line is that municipal gun bans in Pennsylvania were always illegal, but that the state did not want to fight about it. This way the gun rights groups can do the fighting, which they will certainly be inclined to do.
Also, see the Section 21, Declaration of Rights, PA Constitution:
21. Right to bear arms.
The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.
http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/…
Avoid being sued by obeying state law, you know, like the rest of us.