Headlines from around the world that are relevant to Pennsylvania Gun Owners
The Second Amendment is now incorporated to cover state and local governments according to today’s opinion released in McDonald vs. Chicago. According to SCOTUS Blog, the decision has been released today, and we’ll have more details as the opinion is shared with the public.
In the meantime, please take a few minutes to thank the members of the legislative branches of government who worked on our behalf to encourage the Supreme Court toward this position. Read more
Yesterday, hundreds gathered outside the capitol to declare support for the 2nd Amendment. Speakers included Suzanna Gratia Hupp, Wayne LaPierre (NRA), Larry Pratt (GOA), Marinelle Thompson (2nd Amendment Sisters), and more.
Following the rally, participants formed over a dozen groups which visited the offices of state representatives. Dialoging with both pro-2nd Amendment and anti-gun legislators, seeking support for a number of pro-rights bills.
Articles reporting on the event:
Oral arguments were heard today by the Supreme Court in McDonald v. City of Chicago, IL. At the center of the case is Chicago’s effective ban on handgun ownership. Several other issues are addressed in the petition as well. These include mandatory firearm registration, mandatory reporting of changes to registration status of any firearm, and the rule which renders any firearm whose registration has lapsed no longer eligible for registration.
Lawyers from both side were given the chance to argue their sides before the Justices today, but the overwhelming public opinion is that the Justices will side with the same division as the Heller opinion in a 5 to 4 decision. In Heller, Justices Scalia, Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas and Alito sided in favor of second amendment rights while the remaining Justices dissented. The case is important to both sides as it will have sweeping effects on the ability of states to restrict citizens second amendment rights.
Filed on the same day the Heller decision was decided, this case differs, if only slightly. Washington, D.C. , the center of the Heller case, is of direct federal jurisdiction rather than a city with local and state jurisdictions applying. During arguments today, the divide remained
Link to the case briefs: McDonald v. City of Chicago, IL, Docket No. 08-1521
The coverage is wide, but here are some relevant articles:
By its conclusion, it seemed plain that the court would extend a 2008 decision that first identified an individual right to own guns to strike down Chicago’s gun control law, widely considered the most restrictive in the nation.
New York Times: Supreme Court Still Divided On Guns
The Supreme Court seemed likely to rule for the first time that gun possession is fundamental to American freedom, a move that would give federal judges power to strike down state and local weapons laws for infringing on Second Amendment rights.
The Wall Street Journal: New Ammunition for Gun Rights
To no one’s surprise, the justices gave no sign that they’ve changed their minds in the past two years. Several talked as if the issue when they rule won’t be whether to restrain gun control nationwide but how much room to leave for “reasonable” state and local limits. And that, indeed, is the important question.
Our view on the Second Amendment: Extend gun rights, but leave room for reasonable limits
Several of the gubernatorial candidates are political unknowns on the issue of gun control because they have not served in a capacity to be tested through votes or policy matters which are typically only handled at the state level. Last night, four candidates went on the record.
The NRA has prevailed in the appeal of Philadelphia’s firearms regulations in Commonwealth Court. The decision can be found here. NRA tried to restore standing to challenge the other ordinances, including “Lost and Stolen,” but Commonwealth Court did not reverse the lower court’s decision on that matter, but did uphold the decision on the assault weapons ban, and one-gun-a-month ordinances.
This ruling sets us up very nicely for a future court battle on all these Lost and Stolen ordinances, provided the Supreme Court is unwilling to revisit Ortiz, which I suspect it won’t. The City of Philadelphia is losing on virtually all their arguments. These ordinances were never about lost and stolen guns, straw purchasers or assault weapons, but were merely a means for the City to regain the ability to violate the Pennsylvania Constitution at will, so it could ban guns. It’s looking increasingly unlikely that ploy will work.
Following in the footsteps of other Pennsylvania City Councils around Pennsylvania who either don’t know or don’t care about Pennsylvania State Law, the Harrisburg City Council is proposing a “Lost & Stolen” reporting law.
Legislation requiring gun owners tell police if their firearm is lost or stolen will be considered by Harrisburg City Council after Tuesday’s recommendation of support from council’s public safety committee.
Under the proposal anyone discovering the loss or theft of their firearm must tell city police within 24 hours or face a fine of from $50 to $1,000 or up to 90 days in jail.
These laws are more feel-good legislation that allows city councils to tell their constituents they are doing something while not actually doing anything, and on top of that they are completely illegal because firearm regulation is reserved for the state legislature under Pa.C.S. § 6120:
John Hohenwarter, NRA Pennsylvania State Liaison, earlier Tuesday told The Patriot-News “Harrisburg does not have the authority to go out and pass their own ordinance” because firearms can only be regulated at the state level. He said the same is true of the five other cities. “The bottom line is they don’t have the authority to do it so why are they even debating it?”
But nevermind the law, Council President Linda Thompson Explains:
Council President Linda Thompson said the impact of gun violence on the city trumps any threat of legal challenge.
It’s interesting how if a citizen ignores the law they go to jail, but if a city council does it it’s a moral responsibility. Funny how that works.
Following on the heels of getting the Department of Defense to reverse its policy on destroying one fired brass, once again allowing it to be sold to the public, we’re quite fortunate to have sixty five pro-gun Democrats stand up to the Obama Administration on the issue of re-instituting the expired ban on so-called “Assault Weapons.”
We Pennsylvanians are fortunate to have a number of our Congressional delegation among the signers, and they deserve our thanks and praise. Those Representatives are:
But in addition to those above who voted to protect our Second Amendment rights, we should also note those Democrats who chose not to take any preemptive action:
If your representative is on the first list, call them and thank them for their support. If they are on the latter list, ask them why they were not among the signers.
This is a very important development in terms of the likelihood we’ll be looking at a new Assault Weapons Ban in the 111th Congress. It takes 218 votes to pass a bill out of Congress, and with these 65 Democrats, we could lose 28 Republicans, and a renewal still would not have the votes to pass the House. If Obama wishes to pass a renewal of the failed semi-auto ban of the Clinton years, it will be, at best, an uphill battle.
But this is not to say that gun owners are out of the woods. We still have anti-gun leadership in key positions in Congress, and still have one of the most anti-gun Presidents in history occupying the Oval Office. This pass over the mountains may be blocked for the time being, but we must think about where they will try to cross next.
According to MSNBC, Obama’s new Attorney General (and historical gun-control proponent) Eric Holder has suggested re-instituting the failed Assault Weapon Ban of 1994:
“The attorney general also suggested that re-instituting a U.S. ban on the sale of assault weapons would help reduce the bloodshed in Mexico, where last year 6,000 people were killed in drug-related violence.”
This should not come as a surprise to anyone who has followed Mr. Holder’s career and nomination.
[H/T: Snowflakes In Hell]
The York City Council on Wednesday tabled a controversial gun proposal at the request of the mayor, despite four council members saying they oppose the legislation.
The proposal, introduced by Councilwoman Toni Smith and backed by York Mayor John Brenner, would require gun owners to report lost or stolen guns within 72 hours.
…
Councilman Cameron Texter said solicitor Shaleeta Washington gave council an opinion saying it would be best to wait because of a state law that prohibits municipalities from making their own gun laws.
[Via the York Daily Record]
The San Francisco Housing Authority has agreed to allow its residents to own guns in a settlement of a National Rifle Association lawsuit that followed last year’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the right to bear arms.
In papers filed Monday with a federal judge, the Housing Authority agreed not to enforce a provision it added to tenant leases in 2005 prohibiting the possession of guns and ammunition. The ban will now apply only to illegal gun ownership, like possession of a machine gun or possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.
[Via San Francisco Chronicle]
 |
|
Find and Review Local
|
