Posted on 10/10/2014 9:40:43 AM PDT by rktman
The NRA is coming, folks. It will have your tax dollars or your submission to its pro-gun agenda — and, by God, maybe it will have both.
Don’t believe me? Then take a look at the text of House Bill 1243, which passed the Pennsylvania House this week, and which now sits before the Senate Judiciary Committee waiting passage.
Here’s what the bill does: It discourages Pennsylvania cities and municipalities from passing gun laws that are more restrictive than state-level gun laws, or from keeping such laws that are already on the books.
Here’s how the bill does that: It lets people sue Pennsylvania cities and municipalities with those too-restrictive gun ordinances.
And here’s who can sue: Gun owners — as well as any “membership organization” whose members are gun owners in compliance with state law, whether or not those members have actually run afoul of the local laws or not, or whether they even care or not.
That’s right: “Membership organization.” While the definition could, I suppose, technically apply to the Boy Scouts, we all know what House Bill 1243 really means: It gives the NRA the right to sue Pennsylvania’s cities and municipalities.
(Excerpt) Read more at phillymag.com ...
Philadelphia is a sewer, and Philadelphia Magazine is the liner at the bottom of the sewer.
The Philly.com was enough of a stop sign for me.
This is a great law. For once in a million years, a piece of legislation that actually combats tyranny and pulls the liberals’ favorite tricks back on them!
You can bet this same writer is always Monty Burns’ing his hands together saying “Excellent” each time the liberals do this across the entire country and at the federal level.
Ohhhh poor baby, he doesn’t like it when someone beats him at his own game.
Here’s how the bill does that: It lets people sue Pennsylvania cities and municipalities with those too-restrictive gun ordinances.”
Oh, ok, soooo litigation is ok for thee but not for me? EFF off ahole.
” pulls the liberals’ favorite tricks back on them”
Yep, thats when you can tell a liberal is buggin’, they start to squirm and whine. As they say, flak is heavier the closer you get to the target. :)
Laws of Pennsylvania
State preemption of local restrictions?
Yes
18 Pa.C.S. § 6120
The Constitution of Pennsylvania protects the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state. The state preempts local regulation of the lawful ownership, possession, transfer or transportation of firearms, ammunition, or ammunition components.[1][2]
Oops.
More Americans have been killed by the ACLU than the NRA.
This guy needs to move to North Korea...where he will be safe. Forever. Where only his masters will be armed.
Playing by the liberal playbook and the liberals do not like it. This gives people and groups standing to sue. Just like the Federal .gov has given to the environmentalist groups etc for years.
We all know the problem with these patchwork quilt laws is that if you are a CPL holder you have to be extremely careful as you move from community to community what those local laws are. Statewide uniform laws makes it easier for law-abiding citizens to remain law-abiding.
we have folks in commierado suing the aurora movie theater (a sign on the door kill zone building) for not having security and having family members injured or killed by a libtard nut job. i would like to see a group get together and sue the theater for not allowing legal background checked citizens tp be able to protect themselves and for announcing to the world their theater was a designated kill zone.
of course the sign is not legally binding here
A good number of these anti-gun nuts are total hypocrites; many have their own guns for personal protection. I hope this guy is a true believer and doesn’t own a gun. Someday, he’ll probably get a lesson from a thug that also believes that law abiding citizens shouldn’t have firearms.
Oh, poo. I thought the NRA was having an essay contest and was posting submission guidelines, how to send them a story.
Bummer.
Well, to be fair the NRA is evil… just not in the way this article posits.
(Seriously, they're like the Republican party always crying about something bad [i.e. they're going to take your guns, so send us money!
] — all the while not addressing the underlying issues [GCA and NFA] and ignoring slam-dunk cases [New Mexico, South Dakota, and North Dakota all have state-statutes in violation of their respective state Constitution].)
“State preemption” has long been a norm in legislation, preventing subordinate jurisdictions from locally overriding/overturning state law. This whined-about clause just clarifies who has “standing” to challenge violation of preemption laws, ensuring that state-declared lawful activity does not suffer “color of law / chilling effect” on an illegal local conflict which in turn stands because the state happens to take no interest in correcting the infraction. Alas, establishing “standing” has become problematic in law of late, so such explicit legislation is required make it viable.
Seems the complaint is against explicitly granting standing to challenge such an infraction. Locales may be violating 18 Pa.C.S. § 6120, but if the state isn’t taking action then many courts will simply dismiss citizen-brought challenges on grounds of “does not have standing”; this law explicitly says any gun owner or organization DOES have standing to challenge such infractions.
What does that have to do with the NRA? Some Pennsylvania lawmakers are trying to make sure gun laws are consistent throughout that Commonwealth. What's the bifg deal?
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.