Because Of New State Law, Cities And Counties Are Scrambling To Get Their Gun Laws Off The Books

Conn said city officials at first reacted with "a level of disbelief" as they realized their governments could be penalized and "you're going to be held personally liable as well."

That should apply to all areas. I can imagine the panic once these bozos realized that THEY might actually be held responsible for their deeds. The Horror!

“St. Petersburg police Chief Chuck Harmon said, “I think they went overboard. I understand if they want to regulate state gun laws as the Legislature has the authority to do. But what happens to an officer who may misapply an ordinance? That seems like an awful lot of penalties for something that may be unintentional.””

Cry me a river. If law enforcement doesn’t know how to properly apply the laws on the books, they have no business being in law enforcement. We’re not talking about a small mistake here, we are talking about wanton and systematic deprivation of Constitutional rights. They’re lucky I wasn’t put in charge of drafting the law, or they would be spending a long time in prison instead of paying a fine.

St. Petersburg police Chief Chuck Harmon said, "I think they went overboard. I understand if they want to regulate state gun laws as the Legislature has the authority to do. But what happens to an officer who may misapply an ordinance? That seems like an awful lot of penalties for something that may be unintentional."

I wonder if he applies the same legal philosophy when it's one of the more important people (private citizens) charged with violating a law.

Cry me a river, Chief. When this happens to a "civillian" your guys arest, you spout, "Ignorance of the law is no excuse." Same same here.

Well, MORESO for them than for the public, for two reasons. First, they're immersed of the legal system and have less excuse for not knowing plus other people's rights are contingent on their knowledge. Second, by being part of the system that has "Ignorance is no excuse" as a policy, they implicitly validate that policy for use against themselves. We, employed at real companies making real things, aren't in the same position logically.

Actually, I believe cities and counties SHOULD have the last word in firearms legislation. They should have the authority to prescribe where and when a weapon may be discharged in a non-emergency situation. And that should be ALL the weapons legislation permitted, ever.

Same with drug usage (recreational)... cities and counties should be able to prescribe penalties for ANY form of PUBLIC intoxication. That’s it and that’s all.

The law demands certain behavior with respect to guns from our cities and towns, but some of them simply ignore the law because there is no statutory penalty, only a civil cause of action on the part of the victim who has to pay their own way in order to enforce the law.

Adequate statutes exist; all that's necessary is for a state prosecutor's office to start enforcing them.

If state law says that certain municipal ordinances are void, then nobody who can't demonstrate why the state law isn't valid can have any valid reason for believing the municipal ordinances to be valid. Someone who detains another without reasonably believing he is authorized to do so is a robber or a kidnapper (depending upon the length and nature of the detention).

While I recognize that a prosecutor's office is subject to political pressures, is there any legal reason a state prosecutor couldn't invite persons who have been unlawfully detained by cops to file complaints with him. If Citizen Fred complains that Joe Cop detained him, and Joe Cop can't convince a jury that he had a legitimate reason for believing that Fred did something that was actually illegal, then Joe Cop is guilty of robbery or kidnapping (the particulars of the case would determine which).

What's important is to recognize that void statutes are illegitimate, and any attempted enforcement actions would be likewise illegitimate. Further, by definition, illegitimate actions form no part of any government agent's legitimate duties; while government agents carrying out their legitimate duties may legitimately have certain legal protections, such protections cannot be legitimately applied to government agents acting in ways they cannot reasonably believe to be legitimate.

The law says they must issue or deny within 14 days, for instance, but there’s no penalty if they don’t, only the ability for the applicant to sue them in district court.

Are you saying municipalities are responsible for issuing licenses? If state has exclusive legal authority over weapons matters, such a policy would seem odd. Nonetheless, if the issue is that municipalities have the manpower to do the background checks and the state doesn't, a remedy would be to provide that applications get sent to the state which logs them and forwards them to the municipalities, which are required to notify the state of the result. Someone who is neither accepted nor denied within 14 days could inquire with the state the status of their application. Someone whose license hasn't been denied within 14 days would be deemed to have been granted one, at least until such time as the person is served notice of denial.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.