Slate
It all started about five years ago, when a group of Pennsylvania cities, frustrated with the difficulty of getting gun-law reforms passed in the Republican-controlled state legislature, started passing laws and ordinances on their own. Their highest priority was requiring gun owners to report lost or stolen guns—a law that was intended to make it harder for gun traffickers to claim, after a crime gun was traced back to them, that the gun had been lost or stolen before the crime was committed. Most of the states bordering Pennsylvania had such a law, but it was going nowhere in Harrisburg. Eventually, more than 100 towns and cities passed the requirement. “The state was not taking any action on it and by putting together support at the grassroots level and showing that mayors and council could take action, we hoped it would compel action at the state level,” says Pittsburgh Mayor Bill Peduto, who was on the city council at the time. “It’s the grassroots level that brings change to state capitals and then Washington, D.C.”
It all started about five years ago, when a group of Pennsylvania cities, frustrated with the difficulty of getting gun-law reforms passed in the Republican-controlled state legislature, started passing laws and ordinances on their own. Their highest priority was requiring gun owners to report lost or stolen guns—a law that was intended to make it harder for gun traffickers to claim, after a crime gun was traced back to them, that the gun had been lost or stolen before the crime was committed. Most of the states bordering Pennsylvania had such a law, but it was going nowhere in Harrisburg. Eventually, more than 100 towns and cities passed the requirement. “The state was not taking any action on it and by putting together support at the grassroots level and showing that mayors and council could take action, we hoped it would compel action at the state level,” says Pittsburgh Mayor Bill Peduto, who was on the city council at the time. “It’s the grassroots level that brings change to state capitals and then Washington, D.C.”
Such laws are anathema to the gun lobby, which argues they violate
the Fifth Amendment’s bar against self-incrimination, since reporting a
lost or stolen gun might implicate someone for other violations.
Gun-rights advocates have also been peeved over another set of
ordinances passed by Pennsylvania towns, banning guns from parks or
other public areas, as well as by laws passed by Philadelphia that,
among other things, limit assault weapons and gun ownership for
domestic-violence abusers. Gun-rights groups argue that most of the
local laws are in violation of a 1974 state law that bars municipalities
against passing restrictions that are pre-empted by state gun laws. But
they have had trouble getting the laws overturned, because that
requires finding someone who can show injury from the laws to bring a
lawsuit challenging them.
So the gun lobby got the state legislature to change the rules of the
game. Late last year, Pennsylvania lawmakers passed a bill, loosely
modeled on a Florida law, to make it possible for any state resident or any gun-rights group to which they belong to challenge local gun laws in court.
The law, Act 192, is an explicit carve-out for gun-rights groups from
customary legal procedures—challenges of school-prayer restrictions, for
instance, are typically brought by actual students who can show that
their rights have been infringed by the restrictions. Not only that, but
the law requires that towns and cities pay the legal fees of any
plaintiffs who successfully challenge their gun laws in court.
In other words, the NRA, with its headquarters in northern Virginia
and annual revenues well above $200 million, can sue towns and cities,
and expect them to pay its costs if it wins.
Oh no! Towns are expected to pay legal fees if they try to keep laws that directly violate state law! How awful!
ReplyDeleteNo, they're expected to pay the legal fees of others who sue them. That's different.
DeleteOnly if they lose the suit. If the city is on the right side of the law, they have nothing to worry about. Seems quite fair.
DeleteMike, that's what I meant. Sorry if it wasn't clear enough.
DeleteAs Sarge said, it seems pretty fair in cases where these towns are in flagrant violation of state law.
No it does not seem fair. Everyone should pay for their own legal representation.
DeleteNo it does not seem fair. Everyone should pay for their own legal representation.
DeleteFairness demands that the party bringing the party at fault (the one, for example, that refuses to drop an illegal "law") pays for everything.
How many hundreds of thousands (or is it into millions now) has Chicago had to fork over to the Second Amendment Foundation? That's a smile. ;-)
In all cases? What about cases where the plaintiff is too poor, or where the defendant committed an intentional tort and then dragged things on so that a good deal of the compensatory damages will be eaten up by legal fees?
DeleteWhat about cases where a vexatious plaintiff keeps filing claims they know are bogus for the sole purpose of running up a defendant's legal bills?
SJ, isn't that was the NRA is doing in these cases? They know the cities are too broke to handle the legal attack. But in these cases you have no problem with that disparity of resources.
DeleteThey know the cities are too broke to handle the legal attack.
DeleteGuess they shouldn't have imposed their illegal "laws," then, eh?
"No it does not seem fair. Everyone should pay for their own legal representation. "
DeleteKeep in mind that the government officials aren't spending their own money, but that of the taxpayer. The only difference is that the taxpayers don't really get a say in these decisions, at least till election day, and gun advocacy contributors are going in with their eyes open.
I think its great that these cities are taking the "high" road and spending God knows how much money defending laws that no one seems to recall ever enforcing. Will make the next elections all the more interesting.
"They know the cities are too broke to handle the legal attack. But in these cases you have no problem with that disparity of resources."
DeleteRemember the old saying, "you cant fight City Hall"? It had a lot to with the government having the monetary resources to apply that disparity of resources to outspend the individual citizen. So now it seems that a little parity has been applied. A good thing.
No, Mike, as much as you would like to frame this that way, that doesn't reflect what's happening here. Note that both examples I gave were dealing with bad faith actions. In the first one, the only one with a disparity of resources, the bad faith was on the part of the guilty defendant dragging the case out. The NRA, or anyone else with a legitimate grievance, is not taking unfair advantage by filing a lawsuit when they have a proper claim at law--regardless of the disparity in resources.
DeleteThe problem isn't the disparity in resources, which will always exist in any society, but the bad actions of a party who is manipulating the system--e.g. concealing evidence, making claims that have no basis in the law, etc. etc.
No matter how nefarious various op-ed pieces spin these laws, they are in force in forty-five of the fifty states. The problem is that PA's preemption law was in place for many years, but cities ignored the state law. Florida had a similar problem until the state legislature amended the law to impose fines on the cities who failed to comply.
ReplyDeleteBut they have had trouble getting the laws overturned, because that requires finding someone who can show injury from the laws to bring a lawsuit challenging them.
ReplyDeleteThat's what cracks me up the most about the anguished bleating over this campaign to enforce Pennsylvania's state preemption of gun laws. The reason there is no one with "standing" is that the cities haven't enforced their illegal "laws." If they had, someone would be injured by the laws, and would thus have standing to sue--so none of the cities dare charge anyone. So now, these silly crybabies are crying over the overturning of illegal laws that would never be enforced anyway.
Gun loons won't wait for court decisions they just refuse to follow current law.
ReplyDelete"Bowing to pressure from pro-gun groups, Allentown Council repealed several sections of the city's gun ordinance Wednesday in hopes of avoiding a lawsuit..
ReplyDeleteThe vote, which was unanimous, came in the aftermath of several lawsuits filed against cities across Pennsylvania challenging gun restrictions that each has on the books.
Mayor Ed Pawlowski, who pushed for the repeal, defended his record of backing gun control legislation, but argued that the city cannot afford such a lawsuit."
"At issue in Allentown are sections of the city's gun law including a prohibition on carrying guns in city parks and on city property, as well as a requirement that gun owners report lost and stolen weapons."
As can be seen, preemption serves a valid purpose. In this case a permit holder wont have to worry about inadvertently breaking the law by walking onto city, also known as public property somewhere.
The issue is about who pays for the law suit.
DeleteDoesn't the loser normally pay the legal fees of the winner in other civil suits in which damages are awarded? In this case, it seems only fair, since the cities are using taxpayers' money to pay the attorneys used to defend an illegal law.
DeleteIf the court decides against them, they SHOULD pay the legal fees of the winner. Perhaps it will make them think twice before they decide to violate state law.
SSG, no. The usual rule in America is each side pays for their own lawyer as opposed to the "English Rule" where the loser usually pays. Legal theory types go back and forth over which rule is better.
DeleteHowever, even here in America we do have situations where the loser pays--it can be set out in statutes (like here), and is often done as a punitive measure against behavior we want to discourage (again, like here).
"inadvertently breaking the law"
DeleteMeaning they were not aware of the law? Ignorance of the law is no excuse and not knowing the law about the gun you own is irresponsible. Totally different than disagreeing with the law, or even knowingly breaking the law to protest it, or show disagreement for it.
"SSG, no. The usual rule in America is each side pays for their own lawyer as opposed to the "English Rule" where the loser usually pays. "
DeleteAh, thanks for setting me straight on that SJ.
"Doesn't the loser normally pay the legal fees of the winner in other civil suits in which damages are awarded?"
DeleteI don't know if that's normal or not, but it doesn't seem right to me.
"Meaning they were not aware of the law? Ignorance of the law is no excuse and not knowing the law about the gun you own is irresponsible."
DeleteThat Fred, is the whole purpose of firearms preemption laws. So that someone who legally carries doesn't have to worry about inadvertently breaking the law. The rules are the same across the whole state.
???? SS
DeleteIf they don't know the law what does it matter if the law is local, State, or Federal?
Fred,
DeleteIn case you're serious about not getting the concept: Do you know every law of every town in your state? Do you regularly try to pull them up to look up every change? The idea is to have one state law so that people can keep up with that law and know that they are complying with it. Otherwise, they might have checked the law, seen that it was legal to carry in place x, and then discover the hard way that the town they are visiting--maybe 200 miles across the state--has an ordinance forbidding carry in place x.
When a state government passes a law, that needs to be the law in that jurisdiction. You don't need to have a patchwork of hundreds or thousands of different laws for people to deal with--especially when the state is the one issuing the carry permits.
"If they don't know the law what does it matter if the law is local, State, or Federal? "
DeleteWhat it boils down to is that it isn't reasonable to expect someone to be able to know what the local ordinances are of any city or county they happen to be traveling through.
Sorry, that doesn't fly. It isn't reasonable to know all tax law, all criminal law, or all of any laws, but that's not an excuse accepted by a judge, or prosecutor. I guess you think gun owners should be treated differently and exempt from knowing the law. These gun loon idiots don't even check what the law is, or they wouldn't be having their guns confiscated at airports and other gun free zones. Same to SJ. NO I don't, but if I were to carry a gun, I would and it would be my responsibility to check and know the laws. If I build a pool I have to check and know the laws about building a pool and the safety regulations I need to follow just having a pool. Amazing you gun loons refuse to accept personal responsibility as gun owners.
DeleteWell, whether you approve or not, its the law in Pennsylvainia, and in fact, as I mentioned at the beginning of this discussion, the law in 45 out of the 50 states. That makes it 90%.
DeleteIf you wish to change it, there are avenues out there to advocate changing the law. Good luck on that.
Doesn't a municipality have the same responsibility to check that the gun laws they make comply with State law?
DeleteWell then know and follow the law! Don't just say like some idiot, I didn't know the law.
DeleteUh huh, but the law in Pennsylvania is that municipalities can't ban guns in parks or make it a crime to fail to report a theft in a set amount of time. And they clearly know the law, so what kind of "idiots" are these people to be fighting this?
Delete"What it boils down to is that it isn't reasonable to expect someone to be able to know what the local ordinances are of any city or county they happen to be traveling through. "
DeleteThe solution is simple and obvious. When in doubt, leave your guns at home locked up in the safe. Everybody wins.
"The solution is simple and obvious. When in doubt, leave your guns at home locked up in the safe. Everybody wins."
DeleteThat's one possible solution. Of course, the other is to make the laws of the entire jurisdiction uniform so that there is one law to keep up with.
But thanks for showing that you do support complicated legal patchworks as a way to encourage gun owners to just shut up and stop doing the icky things you don't like.
"When in doubt, leave your guns at home locked up in the safe. Everybody wins."
DeleteIn almost all of the states of the union which have preemption laws in place, there is no doubt. I can be confident that I wont run afoul of any of these laws that conflict with state law.
So I can carry with no concerns. Everybody still wins.
If America's gun problem was only based on your gun behavior SS, America would not have a gun problem. The facts, arrests, and confiscations at airports and other places prove gun owners are not only irresponsible, but could care less about laws and just bring their guns.
DeleteI thought you're not against carry any more than gun ownership, Mike. Those who qualify for ownership in your mind should also be allowed to carry. Isn't that your stance?
DeleteWell, not exactly. I think there should be higher standards for carry than for simple ownership.
DeleteIs this where we get to hear about your "famous 90%"?
DeleteNice! It appears that the scofflaw municipalities are one after the other bowing to the glorious new reality of having to repeal their illegal gun laws--their crimes against the humanity of Pennsylvania:
ReplyDeleteDoylestown, Bethlehem, Allentown and Liberty, includes the list of dozens of cities across the Keystone State that are in the process of scrapping illegal laws to comply with an National Rifle Association-backed preemption measure.
This certainly isn't going to help the cause.....
ReplyDelete"Back in 2009, several Pennsylvania cities were deciding whether to pass a “lost or stolen” gun ordinance. The NRA had threatened lawsuits if they did. But there was an offer to pay for the costs of those lawsuits, if they happened.
In Lancaster, the minutes from May 26th, 2009, show that a representative from the National Coalition of Mayors (an anti-gun violence group) made an offer that he said came from the Brady Campaign Against Gun Violence."
"And two months later, minutes from the Erie City Council showed a similar offer, as that council discussed the same issue. The minutes show a letter from the western PA coordinator from CeaseFire PA: “…in the event that a lawsuit occurs, the Brady Center has promised to represent pro bono (free of charge) any Pennsylvania municipality that passes lost or stolen handgun reporting. The Brady Center has given me the authority to convey this offer to Erie.”
"The executive director of CeaseFire PA says she was not in the position when the offer was made, and her organization does not have its own legal team."
"The Brady Campaign says the man who made the offer to Lancaster was not speaking on behalf of the Brady Campaign. At the time, the Brady Campaign was helping Pittsburgh when the city was sued by the NRA, but a spokesman says that was on different legal grounds. “The Brady Campaign promised and fulfilled its promise to represent Pittsburgh,” says a spokesman at the Brady Campaign."
http://fox43.com/2015/02/23/pro-bono-offer-for-legal-defense-in-gun-lawsuit/