PA OKs Measure Allowing NRA to Sue Towns Over Gun Laws

[Sugarcoated]

Source: New Works

Pennsylvania legislators have passed a bill backed by the National Rifle Association that will make it easier for gun rights organizations to overturn local gun control ordinances.

The measure allows membership organizations such as the NRA to sue towns and cities over any local gun law without having to find actual plaintiffs who can demonstrate that they've been harmed by the law. The absence of such plaintiffs has prevented the NRA from successfully challenging local laws in the past.

Gov. Tom Corbett is expected to sign the legislation into law.

When the new bill goes into effect, a likely target for gun rights groups will be laws that require gun owners to report lost or stolen firearms. Philadelphia is one of about 20 Pennsylvania cities that have passed that kind of reporting law.

Read more: http://www.newsworks.org/index.php/homepage-feature/item/74201-pa-oks-measure-allowing-nra-to-sue-towns-over-gun-laws?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=fbstory&utm_content=test&utm_campaign=social-inbound

[Suich]

1. That's insane,

or is it just me?

[Sugarcoated]

2. No, not just you

I was just reading the comments following the article I posted, discussing the whole thing with my son and I am fuming. The NRA and the gun nut organizations are power hungry pigs. It's like a competition for them, they want to take all gun laws away. Safety, our right to be safe from guns, background checks so bad guys can't get them, nothing matters to these bloodthirsty pigs.

[branford]

4. The law is only about standing to sue.

If the relevant PA ordinances are lawful under the PA and federal Constitutions, they will survive, regardless of whether the NRA can sue individually or as the representative of individual plaintiffs.

The reactions appear to indicate an acknowledgment that many of the local PA gun laws are actually unlawful, but should nevertheless be upheld. Although the new law in somewhat unusual, I have little sympathy for unconstitutional legislation, concerning firearms or anything else.

[Sugarcoated]

17. Actually it looks to me

like you just want to make that assumption. My rights to be safe are just as important as the right to bear arms.

[dsc]

19. written as someone who has never been sued

the fact is the very existence of the lawsuit will cost the city millions and millions of dollars making many cities unwilling to pass the law. It is nothing short of absurd to argue one has a constitutional right not to report a lost or stolen item which can be used to kill people.

[Sugarcoated]

21. I agree with you

Did you mean to address someone else in the thread?

[branford]

20. You really didn't address my point.

The statute is about standing to sue, and not about substantive gun restrictions. If the various local PA gun ordinances are lawful under the PA and federal Constitutions, they will survive judicial scrutiny, regardless of the identity of the challenging plaintiffs.

Apparently, localities in PA like to ignore state and federal law concerning guns. I am not surprised. For instance, I know Philadelphia has been sued repeatedly, and lost to the financial detriment of taxpayers, concerning their firearm ordinances and other de facto restrictions and violation, such as arresting those who legally open carry under state law under pretextual disorderly conduct and similar laws. You may agree with the Philadelphia authorities, but it doesn't make their actions legal, and you should seek redress from the legislature (to the extent your remedies are otherwise constitutional).

Concerning the new PA law, I don't understand your statement about your safety vs. gun rights. If you're just generally advocating gun control legislation, you're not discussing the actual effect and importance of the PA legislation.

[Sugarcoated]

22. What I see

is the NRA and gun extremists hacking away at gun as many gun safety laws as they can. I am against that. It makes us less safe without common sense gun safety laws.

[GGJohn]

24. So you think it's a good idea to have every county/city/town within a state to make it's own

firearms laws?
You think it's a good idea for citizens to be legal in one municipality and illegal in another municipality?
This law gives the state the sole authority to set firearm laws across the state, which makes them uniform.

Many states have pre-emption laws, it makes sense.

[Sugarcoated]

25. If this isn't the NRA and gun extremists

trying yet again to weaken common sense gun safety laws, then yeah, I'm okay with straightening out the consistency of firearm laws statewide. However, it looks to me to be an excuse to try to get in there and weaken laws meant to protect us, after all, it is the NRA's MO

[GGJohn]

27. It's an attempt to get uniform laws across the state and not make more criminals

out of otherwise law abiding gun owners.
I'm sure the local govt. are screaming about this because it will negate alot of their revenue generating laws and authority.

[Sugarcoated]

50. If that's the case, then I'm not opposed to that

but I don't trust the gun extremists or the NRA and their motives.

[branford]

26. The new PA law changes absolutely nothing about current gun restrictions or safety.

It simply permits organizational plaintiffs to challenge the local laws under the current legal framework.

However, since PA is a pre-emption state, and many local ordinances appear not follow state law, I imagine that many of these local laws will correctly fall.

If you believe more gun restrictions are warranted, and to the extent that they are otherwise constitutional, you must seek redress with your state legislature or Congress.

[Sugarcoated]

42. I support common sense gun safety laws

[branford]

46. That's fine, and you're certainly welcome to advocate any position you wish.

However, "common sense gun safety laws," however you wish to define such terms, is not really the point of the new PA law.

As I stated earlier, the PA law neither expands or restricts gun rights in the state. It only permits institutional plaintiffs to challenge ordinances, largely because many PA localities appear to routinely violate PA law concerning guns. The towns and cities brought this on themselves.

It's obvious that you support the stricter gun ordinances of certain towns and cities, but they should not be able to violate state law with impunity, regardless of whether it concerns firearms or anything else.

If you believe that stricter gun control measures are warranted in PA, the proper route is to lobby the state legislature for greater restrictions and/or remove the preemption so localities can institute greater restrictions. As has repeatedly happened in Philadelphia, the only effect of localities ignoring state gun laws is numerous pro-gun plaintiffs winning often sizable legal awards at the expense of taxpayers, and without appreciably (or lawfully) restricting firearms.

[Sugarcoated]

48. I stopped reading after the first line of your post

You're repeating yourself

[notrightatall]

51. no sense arguing with a hell-bent gunner.

Their brains are in their "gunz" Without their guns they are less than nothing.

[Sugarcoated]

52. Sure seems that way, doesn't it?

Good way to describe them.

[merrily]

3. Odd. They would have to sue in state court because a plaintiff who has been harmed is a requirement

in federal court. But, if they are suing over the Constitution, then the final appeal is to the SCOTUS, even for a case that began in state court. I wonder how all that sorts out when it comes to specifics. What the hell is such a big deal about finding a plaintiff, anyway? Some gun dealer or manufacturer is always going to be available to say he or she was harmed, and in some way different from the public in general.

I've heard that TPP would actually enable non-governmental entities to overrule state and local law. If accurate, I am not sure how that will sort out, either, when it comes to specifics.

Seems though, that, bit by bit, ordinary people are being frozen out or made irrelevant in many things. And we still call it democracy. We're odd ducks, we are.

[happyslug]

13. Standing has been a constant issue in the law

What would the US Supreme Court do if faced with a case that the PA Supreme Court had ruled on a federal issue, where the prevailing side is then ruled NOT to have standing? That is the opposite situation as in the California ban on Gay Marriages (there the US Supreme Court ruled that the people who pushed through the ban had no standing to defend it and thus no standing to file the appeal when they lost at trial court level)?

For example if the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled it was unconstitutional for any local Government to ban Automatic weapons, and the city or state appeals (or both with the Federal Government) that ruling to the US Supreme Court what would happen to the case if the NRA is ruled no longer to have standing to defend it? In my scenario the NRA WON at the lower level, but in the US Supreme Court it would technically have no standing to even argue the case. If the US Supreme Court dismisses the case for lack of standing, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling would remain the law, even if all of the Justices of the US Supreme Court wanted to rule otherwise.

In most situations the Courts have "Bent" the Standing rule to give someone standing. The best known such case is Roe vs Wade. Prior to Roe vs Wade the Courts had ruled that by the time the case came to the Court, the plaintiff's case had become moot, either the plaintiff gave birth or had the abortion and thus no longer had standing.. i.e Standing while pregnant to get a legal abortion, but no standing once the Plaintiff was no longer pregnant. In Roe v Wade the Court granted standing on the ground the Plaintiff were representative of the class of woman who where pregnant and thus would have standing, even through the women by the time the case came to the Appellate Court System were no longer pregnant.

Thus, if the NRA would win in State Court, I see the Federal Courts giving them standing for otherwise they would be no one on the PREVAILING SIDE. If the NRA would lose at the State Level I see the Federal Courts using Standing to keep such cases out of their docket i.e ruling no standing means NOT having to rule on the underlying legal issue.

Thus in many ways HOW the Federal Courts will handle the case will be determined on how the State Court handle the case. If the ruling is one where the NRA prevails, I see the Federal Courts ruling the NRA has standing to defend that ruling, on the other hand if the NRA loses, I see the Federal Courts Ruling the NRA has no standing to file an appeal to the Federal Courts.

[SoapBox]

5. These GunNutters are going to be the death of this country.

Fuck the NRA...when are real Americans going to stand up to this Terrorist Organization?

[SoapBox]

6. Another ALEC plot?

[blkmusclmachine]

7. Insanity.

[Downwinder]

8. Gun laws or any laws more restrictive than state law?

Local Speed limits and construction codes included?

[Volaris]

9. "without having to find actual plaintiffs who can demonstrate that they've been harmed by the law"

Isn't this the reason that the Supreme Court tossed the law suit appeal that came from Chris Hedges and Noam Chomsky re: the NDAA and indefinite detention of American Citizens? Because the SC said the plaintiffs could NOT establish that they had been directly harmed by the law (I.E., didn't have Standing)?

Yes, this is EXACTLY the reason the Supreme Court gave in not hearing the appeal.

So if THIS stands, doing what Chomsky did will be A-OK for the NRA and other Interest-Lobbying Groups (SEE: CORPORATIONS) but clearly NOT OK for any actual Chomsky's (SEE: REGULAR CITIZENS)?

Yes, this is EXACTLY what it means.

[TRoN33]

10. I almost thought this is onion-worthy satire...

[enough]

11. PA is going crazy with right-wing legislation at the moment. They must be trying to

get it all done before Corbett is gone.

[AlinPA]

12. PA is controlled by teabaggers. Governor, State House, State Senate, 13/18 US House Reps, and

one teabagger US Senator.

[Sugarcoated]

15. Well, the writing is on the wall for Corbett

He's not a TB'er, but has done, and will do, apparently, their bidding. In a regular world, Corbett might not be this beatable, I think he's basically a typical PA Republican. Thanks Wingnuts

[AlinPA]

41. Disagree. He is an ignorant stupid teabagger.

[Sugarcoated]

43. Details

He's toast and that's what counts.

[AlinPA]

44. If Democrats in PA turn out to vote. This state has turned stupid, electing so many teabaggers.

[Sugarcoated]

49. Not this time though

fortunately.

[happyslug]

14. This law is one paragraph in a law otherwise directed at metal thieves..

Wording of the Paragraph in question:

§ 6120. LIMITATION ON THE REGULATION OF FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION.
....

(A.2) RELIEF.--A PERSON ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY AN ORDINANCE, A RESOLUTION, REGULATION, RULE, PRACTICE OR ANY OTHER ACTION PROMULGATED OR ENFORCED BY A COUNTY, MUNICIPALITY OR TOWNSHIP PROHIBITED UNDER SUBSECTION (A) OR 53 PA.C.S. § 2962(G) (RELATING TO LIMITATION ON MUNICIPAL POWERS) MAY SEEK DECLARATORY OR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND ACTUAL DAMAGES IN AN APPROPRIATE COURT.

(A.3) REASONABLE EXPENSES.--A COURT SHALL AWARD REASONABLE EXPENSES TO A PERSON ADVERSELY AFFECTED IN AN ACTION UNDER SUBSECTION (A.2) FOR ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:

(1) A FINAL DETERMINATION BY THE COURT IS GRANTED IN FAVOR OF THE PERSON ADVERSELY AFFECTED.

(2) THE REGULATION IN QUESTION IS RESCINDED, REPEALED OR OTHERWISE ABROGATED AFTER SUIT HAS BEEN FILED UNDER SUBSECTION (A.2) BUT BEFORE THE FINAL DETERMINATION BY THE
COURT.


http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/PN/Public/btCheck.cfm?txtType=PDF&sessYr=2013&sessInd=0&billBody=H&billTyp=B&billNbr=0080&pn=4318

Later on the Law then defines who is someone "Adversely Affected:

"PERSON ADVERSELY AFFECTED." ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:

(1) A RESIDENT OF THIS COMMONWEALTH WHO MAY LEGALLY POSSESS A FIREARM UNDER FEDERAL AND STATE LAW.

(2) A PERSON WHO OTHERWISE HAS STANDING UNDER THE LAWS OF THIS COMMONWEALTH TO BRING AN ACTION UNDER SUBSECTION (A.2).

(3) A MEMBERSHIP ORGANIZATION, IN WHICH A MEMBER IS A PERSON DESCRIBED UNDER PARAGRAPH (1) OR (2).

This is the deadly part of the law, all the NRA needs is anyone in the STATE who may legally possess a firearm, not a resident of the municipality or county in question.

[Sugarcoated]

16. Weasel fuckers

They can't win on the issue straight up, so they have to cheat. Yep

[GGJohn]

18. Does Pennsylvania have a state pre-emption law?

If so, then only the state lawmakers can set firearm policy and all those municipalities that set stricter laws than the state allows are in violation of state law.

Edit: yes, this is a state pre-emption law, which many states have, the reason being that it makes firearms law uniform across the state rather than patchwork laws that can make a citizen legal in one county/city/town and make them a criminal in another county/city/town.

[Paulie]

23. Appears this will make church/state actions easier

Heh

[geretogo]

28. Democracy doe's not exist on the federal and state level , how dare local communities

try to establish it in their town . This makes David Koch very ,very mad .

[branford]

29. Are you really advocating that localities should be able to violate state law,

no less concerning matters of constitutional rights?

Be very careful what you wish for, as there are many states with very liberal state legislatures like NY, CA and MA, but with towns and cities dominated with conservatives.

[geretogo]

30. I am willing to live by Majority rule with in the boundaries of the Constitution not by minority rule

imposed by the Koch brothers .

[branford]

32. Even when the majority is actually conservative?

The PA gun laws, both the substantive ownership and carry regulations and the recent legislation, have all been passed with duly elected state legislators and signed by democratically elected governors. Many of the pro-gun representatives in PA are actually Democrats, particularly from more rural areas. PA is a big state, and not everyone has the liberal sensibilities of Philadelphia.

[Aristus]

31. Well done, Pennsylvania legislators.

Your checks are in the mail.

Once again, corporate greed wins out over public safety...

[branford]

33. Do you have any evidence that the majority of PA citizens do not support the law?

Have there been any polls or similar surveys?

Much of PA, particularly outside of Philadelphia, is somewhat conservative and do not support strong gun restrictions. In fact, many Democrats in PA are comparatively conservative and pro-2A.

Passing conservative or pro-gun legislation, by itself, is certainly not evidence of corruption.

[Aristus]

34. Okay. You're new here, so I'll let that slide.

Especially if you can furnish evidence that all of these pro-2A Pennsylvanians you mentioned are members in good standing of duly constituted, regulated militias charged with the defense of the Commonwealth. After all, the language is irrefutable: "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state..."

[GGJohn]

35. You left half of it out,

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed".

[Aristus]

36. I did that deliberately in order to highlight the fact that pro-gunners always

forget the first half.

Either that, or they resort to calling their loose collection of beer-bellied drinking buddies, social misfits and local psychopaths a 'militia'.

[branford]

38. That's not the constitutional interpretation established by the Supreme Court,

no matter how much you or others disagree. In any event, and far more importantly, the 2A is a complete red herring in this discussion.

With or without the 2A, PA could be as permissive as it wants with its firearm ownership and use regulations. The 2A only sets a cap on the extent of restrictions allowed. It does not grant the right to own or carry arms in the USA.

If the 2A were repealed in its entirety, little would actually change nationwide. Congress would still probably lack the majority will to enact stronger gun legislation, and states like TX, AZ and VT would simply maintain their permissive firearms laws. States that already have strong restrictions might enact even stronger legislation, to the extent such laws would be permissible under their relevant state constitutions and their 2A analogs.

Gun laws are still mostly the province of state law, and as such many states are quite liberal. As a practical matter, if you want stronger gun control laws, up to the extent permitted by the 2A, which still allows significant restrictions, you need to convince the electorates of the various states if Congress is not amenable.

Pennsylvania currently has a moderately permissive gun ownership regime that appears to comply with (and is generally unaffected by) the 2A, regardless of its interpretation. Except in some of the more liberal pockets of the state, like Philadelphia, I've seen nothing to indicate a desire for more restriction.

So, I'll restate my question, do you have any evidence that the majority of the voters of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania do not support their current permissive gun laws or the new law discussed in the OP?

[Aristus]

39. Please don't ask me to respect the judical acumen of the Felonius Five.

Unless you want to stand up in favor of The Dred Scott Decision, Plessy vs Ferguson, Bush vs Gore, etc.

Bad judicial decisions come from bad judicial minds.

[branford]

40. Respectfully, did you read my post?

The 2A is irrelevant to this particular discussion, regardless of your, my, or the current SC's interpretation.

As discussed in my prior post, the 2A can be repealed tomorrow or the Court can adopt your interpretation, and the issues in PA would remain exactly the same.

It's not the 2A that's preventing more gun control in PA, its the voters.

[Brigid]

37. Let the gun carnage continue.

[logosoco]

45. What does the NRA have against lost or stolen guns being reported?

I seriously don't understand that one.

And why are they so uptight about a community being able to vote on the laws they want in their own city?

[branford]

47. Do feel the same way if localities want more permissive and liberal gun regulations than state law?

Common state preemption laws are generally designed to ensure a standard legal framework within an entire state, rather than a patchwork of regulations. Some states are also preemptive, but allow certain exceptions, as is the case with Illinois and Chicago.

Moreover, I don't think the primary issue in PA is really the law about reporting lost or stolen gun, but rather that localities do not have the power to pass and enforce such laws at all. If Philadelphia or Pittsburgh are able to pass the such an ordinance, little would prevent them from passing more onerous restrictions. If the authorities in these cities want a reporting law, they need to lobby the state legislature for such a law or to eliminate preemption.

[alarimer]

53. This is special treatment of gun owners.

If they don't live in an area, how can they be harmed by the laws and, thus, have standing to sue?

Entirely bullshit, designed as a scare tactic to keep localities from passing gun laws that may be stricter than state laws.
Fuck the NRA and asshole gun nuts.