If you really want to get technical about it, there is one word that makes the whole thing just that much more laughable.
§ 1102.02 PROHIBITION ON USE OF ASSAULT WEAPONS
A. It shall be unlawful to use any assault weapon in any public place within the City of Pittsburgh.
B. For purposes of this Section, "public place" shall include streets, parks, open spaces, public buildings, public accommodations, businesses and other locations to which the general public has a right to resort, but does not include a private home or residence or any duly established site for the sale or transfer of firearms or for firearm training, practice or competition.
C. For purposes of this Section, "use" of an assault weapon does not include possession, ownership, transportation or transfer. "Use" of an assault weapon shall include, but is not limited to:
1. Discharging or attempting to discharge an assault weapon;
2. Loading an assault weapon with ammunition;
3. Brandishing an assault weapon;
4. Displaying a loaded assault weapon;
5. Pointing an assault weapon at any person; and
6. Employing an assault weapon for any purpose prohibited by the laws of Pennsylvania or of the United States.
D. For purposes of this Section, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that an assault weapon is loaded if fitted with a magazine.
According to the language, as written, you are "using" an "assault weapon" only if all six conditions of section C are being met. (To break the law you must engage in Action A, Action B, Action C
AND Action D.) Had they used the word "OR" then engaging in any of the conditions would be considered "use" independent of whether the other actions were present. (To break the law you must engage in Action A, Action B, Action C
OR Action D.)
*edit to add* I forgot to consider the preamble phrase "... shall include". That conditionalizes the list, making each item independently inclusive.
The phrase "...shall include but is not limited to:" for item C renders the entire thing moot, anyway. With that phrase they have eliminated specificity. It's good wording for a Policy and Procedure manual because it expresses a relatively clear intent and spirit while leaving wiggle room for managerial decision-making. It's terrible for a law because it lacks objectivity and clearly defined limits. Translated to legalese it essentially reads "It's these things and whatever else we want it to be". Appeals courts, even liberal ones, have repeatedly struck down this type of language, citing its unenforceably subjective and overly vague nature.
Brad
