Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: WLJ on April 02, 2019, 07:31:34 PM
-
Pittsburgh City Council Defies State Preemption, Sends Gun Control to Mayor
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2019/04/daniel-zimmerman/pittsburgh-city-council-defies-state-preemption-sends-gun-control-to-mayor/
The legislation places restrictions on military-style assault weapons like the AR-15 rifle that authorities say was used in the Oct. 27 rampage at Tree of Life Synagogue that killed 11 and wounded seven. It also bans most uses of armor-piercing ammunition and high-capacity magazines, and allows the temporary seizure of guns from people who are determined to be a danger to themselves or others.
Seems like they're trying to get around Pennsylvania's Preemption law by banning the use of, not the possession of "assault" weapons.
Of course how are they defining "assault" weapon?
Pittsburgh City Council passes gun safety legislation
https://www.wtae.com/local-news
§ 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.
-
§ 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.
Words have meanings. The proposed ordinance doesn't prohibit carrying a loaded "assault weapon," it prohibits "loading" an "assault weapon." The way I read it, as long as you "load" it at home, you're not in violation of the law, even if/when your "assault weapon" has a loaded magazine in it.
Nonetheless, I expect that the PAFOA will go after this post-haste if the mayor signs it, and I expect that the courts will smack it down.
PA state 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.
Since the proposed ordinance would prohibit pointing an "assault weapon" at a person or discharging it, both of which actions are necessary in using a firearm for self defense, the ordinance is unconstitutional on its face.
-
Brandishing an assault weapon;
Pointing an assault weapon at any person; and
Employing an assault weapon for any purpose prohibited by the laws of Pennsylvania or of the United States.
Aren't these things already illegal?
-
Pointing a firearm at someone is not illegal if that someone is a criminal and you need to shoot him (or her) to defend yourself or an innocent third party. The language of this ordinance doesn't have an exception for that. Sort of like when the state of New York passed the SAFE act with a 7-round magazine capacity limit, and didn't create an exception for police officers in the line of duty.
-
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
-
Aren't these things already illegal?
They'll be illegal double plus one now.
-
They'll be illegal double plus one now.
Does that make them double-secret illegal?
Brad
-
Mayor got knocked out of the primary.
Gun control may or may not have had much to do with it but good to see him go.
The City Of Pittsburgh Has Apparently Had Enough Of Its Anti-Gun Mayor
https://bearingarms.com/tomknighton/2021/05/19/pittsburgh-anti-gun-mayor-loses-primary-n45376
-
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Couldn't have happened to a nicer guy.
Brad
-
Not PA, but here in OH we have state preemption as well and several of the large cities have tried to write their own laws and I believe the State Supreme Court has taken the large cities out back behind the wood shed and showed them what is what.
-
Seems like I heard earlier this week that Colorado voted out state preemption.
-
Seems like I heard earlier this week that Colorado voted out state preemption.
The bill passed the Senate along party lines:
https://bearingarms.com/tomknighton/2021/05/19/preemption-law-n45366
-
The bill passed the Senate along party lines:
https://bearingarms.com/tomknighton/2021/05/19/preemption-law-n45366
Sorry to hear that. Could get rough. I guess you will eventually need an app to keep up with the laws when traveling that state.
-
CO = East CA
-
CO = East CA
Sadly true. And I just escaped CA in 2019.