Pa. justices question roots of NRA-backed law

[SecularMotion]

Pennsylvania's Supreme Court on Wednesday signaled it was unlikely to reinstate a controversial law that gave the National Rifle Association the right to challenge municipal gun ordinances across the state.

During arguments that focused less on the merits of the 2014 measure than the legality of the process that made it a law, some justices had tough questions for an attorney for the Republican legislative leaders who helped enact the bill.

"If, by brute force, the majority of the General Assembly can cram through any number of regulations ...," Justice David N. Wecht said, "the constitution takes a backseat."

The law, known as Act 192, gave groups such as the NRA the right to challenge local gun-control ordinances, instead of limiting those rights to individuals. It was passed not as stand-alone legislation, but tacked on as an amendment to a bill that increased criminal penalties for stealing secondary metals, such as copper wire.

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/politics/20160310_Pa__justices_question_roots_of_NRA-friendly_law.html

[Eleanors38]

1. In general, local governments are creatures of the state. Federalism is a national/state

relationship. Hence, local governments either directly carry out stage-mandated functions, or are given local autonomy as per state powers.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

2. huh

"If, by brute force, the majority of the General Assembly can cram through any number of regulations ...," Justice David N. Wecht said, "the constitution takes a backseat."

That sounds exactly like the NY SAFE Act, the so-called "assault weapon" registration law in VT and Colorado's much-maligned gun control law.