This is just a change as required by Pennsylvania's preemption law. Florida had similar issues when they passed their preemption law and eventually had to pass a law mandating monetary fines against cities that refused to obey the law.
I know you guys have all the legal arguments to support this, but I still don't like it. It seems to me that states which are largely rural might need to have stricter laws in the urban areas.
"It seems to me that states which are largely rural might need to have stricter laws in the urban areas."
Mike, I seem to recall you suggesting that the only time I'm really justified in carrying is in an urban area. However, this is something for each individual to decide based on their individual circumstances. The park issue has mainly to do with conforming to Pennsylvania's preemption law in order to insure that the rules are consistent statewide. That way, those who carry don't have to worry about breaking the law just by crossing a city boundary.
"It seems to me that states which are largely rural might need to have stricter laws in the urban areas." Mike how would that provide equality to the people who live urban areas?
Equal rights under the law does not mean that everybody everywhere has the same access to guns. This is just another stupid over-simplification that you gun nuts love.
Different laws for different people right Mike, you sound like a Righty talking about gay marraige....Different rights for Different people Different rights for Different people come on Mike chant with me you can teach it to all your anti minions
"Equal rights under the law does not mean that everybody everywhere has the same access to guns." ...and this was not a story about access to guns it is about all the people in the state who in order to exercise their right freely who have already jumped through the immoral hoops set before them ,having the same rights as everyone else regardless of place of residency....but you dont like that, Different rights for Different people
No, it's not about that either. It's about restricting gun right in certain areas. Places that are more populated may require different rules than those that are sparsely populated. Prison guards and lawyers cannot bring their guns into correctional facilities. Is that wrong? Does that infringe on their natural human rights?
"Prison guards and lawyers cannot bring their guns into correctional facilities. Is that wrong?"
Mike, those restrictions, normally fall under state law, as do restrictions such as guns being allowed in schools. This law is to insure that laws enacted by cities and counties comply with the state law that prevents them from passing stricter laws.
"I can't bring my leashed dog into my local park, but I can bring a gun."
Silvia, then all you need to do is contact your elected officials and work towards removing the restriction. In this case, it was addressed at the state level, but local governments are refusing to comply with state law, and enforcing a law that comply with state mandate. This law mentioned in the post merely gives freedom to gun rights organizations to challenge those laws in court.
No, it seems it gives them the right to have guns in the park, no court decision necessary.
Wrong. Pennsylvania's preemption law, whereby only the state is empowered to enact gun laws, has been on the books for many years. In the last decade or so, many PA municipalities have ignored that law, and enacted (illegitimate) gun laws, like park gun bans. When the NRA or other groups would file suit to have those illegitimate laws overturned, they were kicked out of court on the grounds that they lacked "standing" to sue.
The new law simply clarifies that they indeed do have standing, and can thus bring the rogue municipalities to court, where the municipalities will inevitably lose, and pay court costs and the plaintiff's legal fees.
So, they are finally doing the right thing (albeit grotesquely belatedly, and only because they have little choice in the matter).
I think the so-called preemption laws are bullshit. If the citizens of a city like San Francisco for example, overwhelmingly vote for stricter gun laws than the state has, why can't they have what they want? And please don't give me that stupid if they voted for slavery response.
"And please don't give me that stupid if they voted for slavery response."
How about something more germane then Mike. Why does everyone on the gun control side seem to get the vapors when a state passes a law saying they wont enforce any new federal gun control laws? Yet, when you see very similar laws passed regarding enforcement of drug and immigration laws, all you hear is silence or outright approval?
I think the so-called preemption laws are bullshit.
Of course you do. But what do you tell gun rights advocates who find the "gun control" law du jour to be "bullshit"? Something about "[y]ou have to be prepared to take your lumps"?
Well, the lawbreaking municipalities can either clean up their acts, or "take their lumps." If they don't like either option, then they can try to change the law--isn't that what you tell us?
MikeB: "If the citizens of a city like San Francisco for example, overwhelmingly vote for stricter gun laws than the state has, why can't they have what they want?"
And if the citizens of a city like Oklahoma City for example, overwhelmingly vote to have their rights to machine guns restored (as in less restrictive laws than what the state has), why can't they have what they want?
"If the citizens of a city like San Francisco for example, overwhelmingly vote for stricter gun laws than the state has, why can't they have what they want?" ...Because city's operate at the will of the state not the other way around...dont think so ,take a look at how many city governments have been taken over by the state when they get in trouble....states are sovereign city's are not
"Why does everyone on the gun control side seem to get the vapors when a state passes a law saying they wont enforce any new federal gun control laws? Yet, when you see very similar laws passed regarding enforcement of drug and immigration laws, all you hear is silence or outright approval?"
I don't follow. I oppose loose gun laws. If a state refuses to follow federal gun control laws, that's wrong. If a state refuses to let a city enact stronger laws than are in force state-wide, that's wrong too.
"If a state refuses to follow federal gun control laws, that's wrong. If a state refuses to let a city enact stronger laws than are in force state-wide, that's wrong too."
Mike, you seem quite contradictory here. In your first example, you seem to support a top down hierarchy which in the norm. And in the next, you seem to say that the city ordinances should overrule state law. The only guiding principle being support which ever law is stricter in regards to gun control. As I said, the federal government seems quite opportunistic in regards to tolerating lower level governments passing laws negating federal laws regarding marijuana and immigration law.
George has it right. I reject the idea of state rights being supreme. The way I see it, if a state can exempt itself from federal laws, then a city ought to be able to do the same thing.
Mike if you believe city's should be sovereign then visit your state reps and speak with them about it...wait never mind you have not resided in this country or any state for 25 or more years they likely will not care like many others what your opinions on issues like this are and ask you to return to you country of residency and whine about how they do things there all the while not realizing your are a one of a plethora of leftist that believe everyone should do what you think is best for them because it is reasonable in your mind...
Which part did you like most Mike the part where i suggested you follow your rightful avenue to lobby your reps. Or the part where I implied you should not whine about things going on in a country you abandoned
Good call, Erie. Better late than never.
ReplyDeleteThis is just a change as required by Pennsylvania's preemption law. Florida had similar issues when they passed their preemption law and eventually had to pass a law mandating monetary fines against cities that refused to obey the law.
ReplyDeleteSounds like a nice place to go for a hike
ReplyDeleteI know you guys have all the legal arguments to support this, but I still don't like it. It seems to me that states which are largely rural might need to have stricter laws in the urban areas.
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that states which are largely rural might need to have stricter laws in the urban areas.
DeleteWhy? Are city folk inherently more violent, and possessed of less self-control, than those who live in suburban and rural areas?
Watch out--CSGV might call you "racist" for that.
"It seems to me that states which are largely rural might need to have stricter laws in the urban areas."
ReplyDeleteMike, I seem to recall you suggesting that the only time I'm really justified in carrying is in an urban area. However, this is something for each individual to decide based on their individual circumstances.
The park issue has mainly to do with conforming to Pennsylvania's preemption law in order to insure that the rules are consistent statewide. That way, those who carry don't have to worry about breaking the law just by crossing a city boundary.
"It seems to me that states which are largely rural might need to have stricter laws in the urban areas." Mike how would that provide equality to the people who live urban areas?
ReplyDeleteMaybe it wouldn't. So?
DeleteDont all people deserve equal protection under the law MIke? or would that not apply because we are talking about guns and they are scary
DeleteWaiting on an answer to the question Mike. Dont all people deserve equal protection under the law MIke?
DeleteEqual rights under the law does not mean that everybody everywhere has the same access to guns. This is just another stupid over-simplification that you gun nuts love.
DeleteDifferent laws for different people right Mike, you sound like a Righty talking about gay marraige....Different rights for Different people Different rights for Different people come on Mike chant with me you can teach it to all your anti minions
Delete"Equal rights under the law does not mean that everybody everywhere has the same access to guns." ...and this was not a story about access to guns it is about all the people in the state who in order to exercise their right freely who have already jumped through the immoral hoops set before them ,having the same rights as everyone else regardless of place of residency....but you dont like that, Different rights for Different people
No, it's not about that either. It's about restricting gun right in certain areas. Places that are more populated may require different rules than those that are sparsely populated. Prison guards and lawyers cannot bring their guns into correctional facilities. Is that wrong? Does that infringe on their natural human rights?
Delete"Prison guards and lawyers cannot bring their guns into correctional facilities. Is that wrong?"
DeleteMike, those restrictions, normally fall under state law, as do restrictions such as guns being allowed in schools. This law is to insure that laws enacted by cities and counties comply with the state law that prevents them from passing stricter laws.
Comparing public parks to state prisons thats not even in the vicinity of logical Mike...
DeleteI can't bring my leashed dog into my local park, but I can bring a gun. There's twisted logic for you.
ReplyDeleteThat's right.
Delete"I can't bring my leashed dog into my local park, but I can bring a gun."
DeleteSilvia, then all you need to do is contact your elected officials and work towards removing the restriction. In this case, it was addressed at the state level, but local governments are refusing to comply with state law, and enforcing a law that comply with state mandate.
This law mentioned in the post merely gives freedom to gun rights organizations to challenge those laws in court.
Silvia can you please post a link to the ordinance that will not allow you to have a leashed dog in your local park ...Thank you
Delete"This law mentioned in the post merely gives freedom to gun rights organizations to challenge those laws in court."
DeleteNo, it seems it gives them the right to have guns in the park, no court decision necessary. There's a difference.
No, it seems it gives them the right to have guns in the park, no court decision necessary.
DeleteWrong. Pennsylvania's preemption law, whereby only the state is empowered to enact gun laws, has been on the books for many years. In the last decade or so, many PA municipalities have ignored that law, and enacted (illegitimate) gun laws, like park gun bans. When the NRA or other groups would file suit to have those illegitimate laws overturned, they were kicked out of court on the grounds that they lacked "standing" to sue.
The new law simply clarifies that they indeed do have standing, and can thus bring the rogue municipalities to court, where the municipalities will inevitably lose, and pay court costs and the plaintiff's legal fees.
So, they are finally doing the right thing (albeit grotesquely belatedly, and only because they have little choice in the matter).
I think the so-called preemption laws are bullshit. If the citizens of a city like San Francisco for example, overwhelmingly vote for stricter gun laws than the state has, why can't they have what they want? And please don't give me that stupid if they voted for slavery response.
Delete"And please don't give me that stupid if they voted for slavery response."
DeleteHow about something more germane then Mike. Why does everyone on the gun control side seem to get the vapors when a state passes a law saying they wont enforce any new federal gun control laws? Yet, when you see very similar laws passed regarding enforcement of drug and immigration laws, all you hear is silence or outright approval?
I think the so-called preemption laws are bullshit.
DeleteOf course you do. But what do you tell gun rights advocates who find the "gun control" law du jour to be "bullshit"? Something about "[y]ou have to be prepared to take your lumps"?
Well, the lawbreaking municipalities can either clean up their acts, or "take their lumps." If they don't like either option, then they can try to change the law--isn't that what you tell us?
MikeB: "If the citizens of a city like San Francisco for example, overwhelmingly vote for stricter gun laws than the state has, why can't they have what they want?"
DeleteAnd if the citizens of a city like Oklahoma City for example, overwhelmingly vote to have their rights to machine guns restored (as in less restrictive laws than what the state has), why can't they have what they want?
Do you really want to go there, Mike?
Why do local lawmakers have the power to set rules and regulations on a federal law (right)?
Delete"If the citizens of a city like San Francisco for example, overwhelmingly vote for stricter gun laws than the state has, why can't they have what they want?" ...Because city's operate at the will of the state not the other way around...dont think so ,take a look at how many city governments have been taken over by the state when they get in trouble....states are sovereign city's are not
Delete"Why does everyone on the gun control side seem to get the vapors when a state passes a law saying they wont enforce any new federal gun control laws? Yet, when you see very similar laws passed regarding enforcement of drug and immigration laws, all you hear is silence or outright approval?"
DeleteI don't follow. I oppose loose gun laws. If a state refuses to follow federal gun control laws, that's wrong. If a state refuses to let a city enact stronger laws than are in force state-wide, that's wrong too.
"If a state refuses to follow federal gun control laws, that's wrong. If a state refuses to let a city enact stronger laws than are in force state-wide, that's wrong too."
DeleteMike, you seem quite contradictory here. In your first example, you seem to support a top down hierarchy which in the norm. And in the next, you seem to say that the city ordinances should overrule state law. The only guiding principle being support which ever law is stricter in regards to gun control.
As I said, the federal government seems quite opportunistic in regards to tolerating lower level governments passing laws negating federal laws regarding marijuana and immigration law.
You really do not understand the concept of state sovereignty do you Mike...or do you just oppose it entirely?
DeleteGeorge has it right. I reject the idea of state rights being supreme. The way I see it, if a state can exempt itself from federal laws, then a city ought to be able to do the same thing.
DeleteMike if you believe city's should be sovereign then visit your state reps and speak with them about it...wait never mind you have not resided in this country or any state for 25 or more years they likely will not care like many others what your opinions on issues like this are and ask you to return to you country of residency and whine about how they do things there all the while not realizing your are a one of a plethora of leftist that believe everyone should do what you think is best for them because it is reasonable in your mind...
DeleteNow that's an intelligent comeback.
DeleteWhich part did you like most Mike the part where i suggested you follow your rightful avenue to lobby your reps. Or the part where I implied you should not whine about things going on in a country you abandoned
Delete