Philly council goes to court for right to adopt local gun laws (PA)

[davepc]

http://www.philly.com/philly/wires/ap/news/state/pennsylvania/20080312_ap_phillycouncilgoestocourtforrighttoadoptlocalgunlaws.html

City council members asked a court Wednesday to let them adopt local gun-control measures because they say loose state firearms laws are wreaking havoc on Philadelphia streets.

They accuse state lawmakers - who were given the sole power to regulate Pennsylvania gun sales in a 1974 law - of abdicating their responsibility to protect the public.

Philadelphia's 400 annual homicides have spawned the notorious nickname "Killadelphia."

"It's clear that they are not going to pass any laws," Councilwoman Donna Reed Miller said of state lawmakers. "We have been elected to protect the City of Philadelphia and we are prepared to do that. ... Every day, we wake up and people are dying."

Wednesday's arguments before Commonwealth Court concerned a motion by lawmakers to dismiss the city's suit, which seeks to overturn the 1974 law. The court did not indicate when it would rule.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

1. What sort of laws do they want?

I'm having no luck with the link in the OP.

What laws are city council members proposing that would keep guns out of the hands of criminals? Or, are the 400 annual homicides committed by law-abiding legal gun owners?

Existing state law should be enough. If only the criminals would obey.

[Tejas]

4. They could

ban guns like DC did.

oh wait.......

;)

[krispos42]

2. 27.6 per 100,000 per year homicide rate

Five times the national average.


But it's slightly lower than DC's (28.7) and a lot lower than Baltimore (40.7), both of which have stricter gun laws.

[Indy Lurker]

3. wow

Just think how bad DC's Homicide rate would be without the gun control.

Why, back in the late 60's before gun control is was 21.3.

Oh, never mind.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

7. DC's Homicide Rate is Less Today than the Year Prior to DC's Law Enactment

Deal with facts.

[bossy22]

11. and NYC's

murder rate and criem rate was lower before they banned assault weapons in the 1960's.....its a correlation not causation

also for another example- the level of carbon dioxide was lower back when slavery was legal........

[fightthegoodfightnow]

13. Is that Why You Didn't Challenge Post #3?

Because there's a 'correlation' and not a 'causation'?

LOL.

[bossy22]

14. that is true

but that doesnt make your correlation any better than his- because at the time when i read the post i didnt feel like responding

what should be taken into account with D.C. is that crime rate rose after the ban- then fell....which in my mind shows that the ban had negligable or no affect at all.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

18. Now Look Who is Using

'correlation' to justify their position?

I'm thinking it's not a correlation at all, but an opinion.

Either way, the fact of the matter is the people of DC through their elected representatives think the law has value.

[bossy22]

21. but those laws

can't violate the constitution- and we shall see if it really does

[fightthegoodfightnow]

24. True...

...... but then again, just because a law regulates guns doesn't mean it is automatically unconstitutional.

Either way, the fact of the matter is the people of DC through their elected representatives think the law has value.

Your courts ...... not withstanding.

[benEzra]

26. So was the rate most everywhere else.

But the rate now/rate then ratio is lower for most places (that did not ban guns) than it is for the District. Is the gun ban at fault? Who knows; there's a reason post hoc, ergo prompter hoc is considered a fallacy. But D.C.'s crime rate decline 1975-present was less than that of the nation at large.

[bossy22]

35. it wasnt really a steady decline

it started to decline right after the ban than skyrocketed up to new highs and then went down- it basically followed the trends of the rest of the country- which gives more evidence that the bans effect on homicide rates was negligent. You could claim that it could have been worse but there is almost no way to prove that.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

9. Nice Try

......... because comparing the homicide rates of urban cities to the national average and then decrying their attempts to control gun violence as being unwarranted is so logical.

[Tejas]

29. FBI stats are what they are,

the numbers are there, posted in this forum numerous times.

DC:

180 murders/year before the ban
160 murders/year now

No logic to justify celebration comes to mind.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

31. Nice Try

LOL.

And what year do you pull out of your ....... *ss?

[Tejas]

32. Care to disprove those numbers? n/t

[DonP]

5. They want full pre-emption

They are demanding the ability to ignore the state constitution so they can implement the same types of laws that work so well at controlling gun crime here in Chicago and in DC.

I always have a hard time deciding if they sincerely believe that gun control = crime control, or if they are just trying took like they are doing "something" for their constituency and the less informed news geeks at the local stations and papers?

It's pretty clear that any real solutions to their (and our) gang crime and gun violence issues will require major changes and investments in multi-generational social programs, job training, education and a change in the mind set of some of the legislators for years to come. I'm afraid not many of these guys have that kind of long term vision, They tend to focus on the next election cycle and not much beyond, (well, except for the $40 million in no bid trucking contracts their brother-in-law is involved in).

So it's a lot easier to pass some gun laws, like we do here and hold another press conference and "take back the streets" (but don't snitch) march after the next shooting outside a school and blame a gun shop in another county or downstate for your unaddressed gang and other community problems.

[bossy22]

6. i think those laws

would be found unconstitutional if ever brought to court...the PA constitution explicitely says the rights of individuals to own guns shall not be infringed

"The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."

[fightthegoodfightnow]

8. Huh?

Who is questioning that?

The city? Paleeze.

Please provide documentation other than than that which exists in the dark crevices of your imagination.

[bossy22]

10. the Philly law

bans assault weapons

[fightthegoodfightnow]

12. And Hasn't That Upheld Constitutional Scrutiny

......... let's say in the 90s?

[bossy22]

15. not the one they want

because it is so sweeping- there ban basically bans all semi-auto's- the ones upheld by state courts have been found to affect only a very small portion of semi-auto firearms

actually- i think the only semi-auto it allows is a ruger 10/22 and a BAR

[bossy22]

16. and the licensing requirement

turns the right into a privalage

[fightthegoodfightnow]

19. Licensing?

Huh....... is it really your position that licensing doesn't stand constitutional scrutiny?

[bossy22]

22. in some cases

the licensing of common weapons (non automatics ) i believe is unconstitutional- the supreme court has shot down other things like this (for example the registration of people who read communist propoganda)


also when the license could cost upwards of $500...i think that can be considered infringement

[fightthegoodfightnow]

25. When It Happens

Let me know.

Otherwise, it's just speculation.

[benEzra]

27. The 1994 Feinstein law didn't ban any guns, new OR used. (n/t)

[bossy22]

17. the city isnt questioning it

they are just plain ignoring it

[fightthegoodfightnow]

20. According to You

Making things up as you go along?

[bossy22]

23. why don't you

read the bill....

[Will E Orwontee]

28. Who's questioning????

Well FTGF, I live in Philly and I know intimately the conditions and political climate of this city and the state.

So that we don't engage in "speculation" allow me to offer a short history lesson.

PA's constitutions have always excepted from state power any ability to impact the RKBA of the citizens. PA's first constitution was ratified in 1776 and was rewritten and ratified in 1790 after the establishment of the United States. Article IX, Section 21 of the 1790 PA constitution stated, (140K pdf) predating the US Bill of Rights:

"That the general, great, and essential principles of liberty and free Government may be recognized and unalterably established, WE DECLARE, . . .

XXI That the right of citizens to bear arms, in defence of themselves and the State, shall not be questioned."

The present constitution was drafted in 1872-73 and ratified in 1874 and a significant and important change in structure was established. The Article declaring the rights of the citizen was moved from Article IX becoming Article I, "DECLARATION OF RIGHTS". Note that this declaration is made before any powers are conferred from the people. Section 21 remained virtually the same.

"The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."

Other articles are worth mentioning as well, the present Article I, Section 25 (which was Section 26 in the 1790 document):

"To guard against the transgressions of the high powers which we have delegated, we declare that everything in this article is excepted out of the general powers of government and shall forever remain inviolate."

So the legislature can not even contemplate the subjects of Article I; their jurisdiction and duty begins and only extends to the subjects listed in Article II or other relevant later Articles, Article I is closed to them. I do not see any possibility that they can grant themselves the power to grant someone else the power (Phila City Council) to violate the PA constitution.

In 1967 another Section was added to Article I and it became Section 26, forbidding any city to take such action on their own, extending these inviolate exceptions of power to injure the rights of PA citizens to all political subdivisions:

"Neither the Commonwealth nor any political subdivision thereof shall deny to any person the enjoyment of any civil right, nor discriminate against any person in the exercise of any civil right."

Of course Phila did anyway under "Fast Eddie" Rendell and suits were filed and the case wound up in the PA Supreme Court. In 1996 in a case named Ortiz v. Commonwealth, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court said:

"Because the ownership of firearms is constitutionally protected, its regulation is a matter of statewide concern. The constitution does not provide that the right to bear arms shall not be questioned in any part of the commonwealth except Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, where it may be abridged at will, but that it shall not be questioned in any part of the commonwealth. Thus, regulation of firearms is a matter of concern in all of Pennsylvania, not merely in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, and the General Assembly, not city councils, is the proper forum for the imposition of such regulation."

That is the present state of affairs here. Right now, these bills and their enactment and enforcement is intended to elicit an expected response; the resultant legal response from injured citizens in the courts is anticipated and welcomed by the present city leadership. They know that there is no hope of getting their desired laws passed in the normal, legislative way and in agreement with Ortiz so they are just going about it in the liberal way; hoping that political hacks on the bench will "interpret" the constitution and thus legitimize illegitimate law.

The recent elections have reshaped the Supreme Court (yes judges, even justices of the State supreme court are elected in PA) so the hope is that the city's new laws will be endorsed by the "reshaped" court because you know, the PA constitution has undergone a fundamental metamorphosis in the last dozen years. The reasoning is the new tide of left leaning judges will rewrite in the fresh unblemished sand what the PA constitution means NOW and how the above sections of Article I can just be ignored.

So, here are the bills introduced into City Council that City Council will certainly pass and Mayor Nutter has promised to enforce. Presently there is no on-line source for the text of these bills.

Bill No. 080015: Prohibit the possession or acquisition of firearms by persons charged with certain criminal offenses.

Bill No. 080016: Acquisition or Transfer of Firearms. To regulate the acquiring or transferring of any firearm within the City of Philadelphia.

Bill No. 080017: Temporary Removal Of Firearms Of Persons Posing A risk Of Imminent Personal Injury To Self Or Others.

Bill No. 080018: Prohibited Possession, Sale and Transfer of Firearms by Persons Subject to Protection From Abuse Orders.

Bill No. 080032: Failure to Report Lost or Stolen Firearm. Requiring prompt notification of lost or stolen firearms and imposing penalties.

Bill No. 080033: Contraband Weapons, Accessories and Ammunition. Prohibition and registration of certain assault weapons and imposing penalties.

Bill No. 080034: Sale or Transfer of Ammunition. Require all sales of ammunition for firearms to be reported to the City of Philadelphia Police Department and to require that Department to maintain a registry of such reports.

Bill No. 080035: Straw and Multiple Handgun Purchase Reduction. Limit purchases of handguns by Philadelphia residents to one a month, and to prohibit ‘straw purchases’ of handguns utilized by criminals for the purpose of evading the one handgun a month limitation.

Bill No. 080036: Reporting Requirements Upon the Application for or Renewal of a License to Carry a Firearm. Provide for certain reporting requirements for the issuance or renewal of licenses to carry firearms within the City of Philadelphia.

If Mayor Nutter were able to present a persuasive legal argument for overturning Ortiz, -- an argument based on a credible analysis of why the case was wrongly decided in the first place -- there would be honor in that approach. But when the plan is simply to test whether the Court's new members are willing to permit gun control whereas the old were not . . . well, that's just disingenuous. It implies the new mayor's and Phila City Council's low opinion of the court's integrity and the supremacy of the constitution. It is pitiful, shameful and disgusting in a city once referred to as the "Cradle of Liberty" In this city Liberty, as defined by the PA constitution, is on a ventilator and Nutter and City Council is standing on the hose.

And as the question on licensing goes:

"It is a license tax - a flat tax imposed on the exercise of a privilege granted by the Bill of Rights. A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution."

Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943)

As soon a Heller comes back with its unavoidable determination that the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right, expect thousands of gun control laws to be challenged and struck down. Your side had many years to enact laws that could pass constitutional muster and you just sat back resting on legal theories which are nothing more than smoke and mirrors . . .

Oh well.

[jody]

39. PA's constitution also declared "natural, inherent, inalienable rights" using carefully chosen words

to make the constitution understandable to the citizenry when it was read to them in a public meeting.

The adjective "natural" emphasizes the source is other than a king or pope.

The adjective "inherent" means every citizen has the same rights.

The adjective "inalienable" means that right cannot be given away.

Those words used by PA just a few months after the Declaration of Independence was signed and also by VT in 1777 are IMO very important.

One can argue the history leading up to PA's and VT's constitutions but IMO that pales to insignificance when contrasted with the simple, unambiguous declaration of rights in those two constitutions.

[Tejas]

30. Very good analysis

Just makes one wonder the true agenda of Daly et al.

[iverglas]

33. you don't know????

Just makes one wonder the true agenda of Daly et al.

The New World Order! One World Government! FREE TRADE, for the love of dog!!! You'd better stop them before it's too late and the maple leaf is flying over the Sears tower.

[bossy22]

34. what is meant by his comment is

the sincerity of Daley's push for legislation on the basis that it will "save lives" when the guns hes banning were used almost no murders in the state....benezra has the stats on how many people were killed with all rifles but i think the number in 2006 was 4

[iverglas]

36. okay, I give up

I gave it my best shot.

So what's the real answer?

[bossy22]

37. the only answer

will be only found in the mind of Mayor Daley and his alone

but what can be said is that what he says is probably not what he truly believes since there is very little evidence to back up his claims- maybe he truly believes it- still the evidence doesnt back him up

What is very interesting is he argues home rule when it comes to chicago gun laws but wants to push those laws on other places of Illinois that most likely don't want them

I can respect the home rule arguement at its most sincere point- but it is almost never there

but if you want my two cents- his agenda is simple- he does not like guns and wants to ban as much as them as possible- simple as that

[benEzra]

38. Yes, all rifles combined accounted for 4 murders out of 487 in '06.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/data/table_20.html

Illinois stats:

Total murders...............................487.....100.00%
Handguns....................................380......78.00%
Edged weapons................................46.......9.45%
Other weapons (non firearm, non edged).......35.......7.19%
Hands, fists, feet, etc......................14.......2.87%
Shotguns......................................6.......1.23%
Rifles........................................4.......0.82%
Firearms (type unknown).......................2.......0.41%

National stats:

Total murders............................14,990.....100.00%
Handguns..................................7,795......52.00%
Other weapons (non firearm, non edged)....2,158......14.40%
Edged weapons.............................1,822......12.15%
Firearms (type unknown)...................1,465.......9.77%
Hands, fists, feet, etc.....................833.......5.56%
Shotguns....................................481.......3.21%
Rifles......................................436.......2.91%

And historically, the #1 rifle used in violent crimes has been the ubiquitous .22 rimfire, not any sort of "assault weapon." So I'd expect that no more than 1 or 2 of those 487 murders involved a rifle that would be classified as an "assault weapon."

In Pennsylvania, the breakdown was 719 murders in 2006, with all rifles combined accounting for 14 of them; for comparison, 27 were murdered with shoes and bare hands, 51 with knives, and 87 with other weapons (bats, boards, bricks, hammers, etc.).