This should be interesting In met Peduto once at a charity event in Pitsburgh. He was a smug asshole.

https://www.nraila.org/article...olation-of-state-law

Pittsburgh Mayor Declares Intent to Ban Guns in Violation of State Law

Yesterday, we reported that it was likely that sweeping gun control measures would be proposed in Pittsburgh. Today, Pittsburgh Mayor William Peduto held a press conference to propose a trio of anti-gun city ordinances that, if enacted, would constitute a direct violation of Pennsylvania’s state firearms preemption law and Pennsylvania Supreme Court precedent. At the event, Peduto was joined by Pennsylvania Governor Tom Wolf, who benefitted from $500,000 in spending from Michael Bloomberg’s Everytown for Gun Safety during his 2018 re-election bid, and City Council members Corey O’Connor and Erika Strassburger.

View Related Articles
Not content to spearhead his own city’s violation of state law, Peduto called for municipalities throughout the country to ignore state statutes duly enacted by their residents’ elected representatives. A press release from the mayor’s office chronicling the conference explained, “Mayor Peduto has asked cities around the country to support Pittsburgh’s measures and/or introduce similar legislation to create nationwide momentum behind the critically needed gun changes.”

Councilmember O’Connor, who purportedly authored the anti-gun proposals, took a similar tack, stating that Pittsburgh “must seize the opportunity to make a real difference by partnering with other municipalities in the Commonwealth and cities across America to enact” gun restrictions. Councilmember Strassburger also encouraged the municipal lawlessness, stating, “I hope more cities across the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the entire nation will join Pittsburgh in this critical effort.”

The three legislative proposals are a total ban on commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms, a total ban on several types of common firearms accessories and standard capacity magazines, and the development of a procedure to confiscate an individual’s firearms without due process of law.

Under the proposed semi-automatic ban, it would be “unlawful to manufacture, sell, purchase, transport, carry, store, or otherwise hold in one’s possession” a firearm defined as an “assault weapon.”

The legislation defines “assault weapon” by listing several models of commonly owned semi-automatic firearms, including the Colt AR-15 and certain configurations of the Ruger Mini-14. Moreover, the legislation goes on to add to the definition of “assault weapon” semi-automatic rifles, pistols, and shotguns that meet a certain set of criteria.

The prohibition criteria for rifles is the following:

a. The firearm is a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable

magazine and has at least two of the following:

i. A folding or telescoping stock;

ii. A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the

weapon;

iii. A bayonet mount;

iv. A flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash

suppressor; and

v. A grenade launcher;

Pistols would be judged under the following criteria:

b. The firearm is a semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable

magazine and has at least two of the following:

i. An ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol

grip;

ii. A threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash

suppressor, forward handgrip or silencer;

iii. A shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the

barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the non-trigger

hand without being burned;

iv. A manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol is

unloaded; and

v. A semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm;

The following shotguns would banned:

c. The firearm is a semiautomatic shotgun that has at least two of the following:

i. A folding or telescoping stock;

ii. A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the

weapon;

iii. A fixed magazine capacity in excess of five rounds; and

iv. An ability to accept a detachable magazine;

The legislation would also prohibit the possession of machine guns lawfully registered under the National Firearms Act.

The legislative proposal targeting common firearms accessories would ban the possession of firearms magazines “that [have] the capacity of, or can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition.” The ordinance would also ban any semi-automatic centerfire rifle that can accept a detachable magazine and is equipped with either a pistol grip, thumbhole stock, folding or telescoping stock, or a forward pistol grip (among other items).

Both pieces of legislation impose severe penalties on those who refuse to submit to the city’s unlawful mandates. Those who do not comply “shall be fined $1,000 and costs for each offense, and in default of payment thereof, may be imprisoned for not more than 90 days.” Moreover, the proposals provide that “[e]ach day of a continuing violation of or failure to comply… shall constitute and separate and distinct offense.” Meaning that otherwise law-abiding individuals who fail to comply with the ordinances would face potential financial ruin.

The final proposal would empower law enforcement to search for and confiscate an individual’s firearms without due process. Acting on merely a petition offered by a law enforcement official or family or household member a court could issue an order for an individual’s firearms to be seized. The individual would have no opportunity to speak or present evidence on their own behalf prior to confiscation.

The Pennsylvania General Assembly has made clear that firearms laws are a state matter and that it is unlawful for the state’s political subdivisions to regulate firearms. 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6120, concerning the “Limitation on the regulation of firearms and ammunition,” states,

No county, municipality or township may in any manner regulate the lawful ownership, possession, transfer or transportation of firearms, ammunition or ammunition components when carried or transported for purposes not prohibited by the laws of this Commonwealth.

The language of the statute is crystal clear. Municipalities like Pittsburgh may not pass their own firearms regulations.

However, the simple statute wasn’t simple enough for the reading challenged lawmakers of Pittsburgh and Philadelphia.

In the 1996 case Ortiz v. Pennsylvania, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania settled the question as to whether Pittsburgh and Philadelphia could restrict commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms. In finding that they could not, the court stated,

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.

Another portion of the opinion described Pittsburgh’s position as “frivolous.”

In the 2009 case National Rifle Association v. Philadelphia, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania came to the same conclusion after Philadelphia ignored the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania’s 1996 ruling and enacted a ban on commonly-owned firearms and a lost or stolen reporting ordinance. Citing Pennsylvania’s firearms preemption statute and the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania’s decision in Ortiz, the Commonwealth Court struck down the local firearms ordinances. Philadelphia appealed the case to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania and was denied.

In pursuing their local gun control ordinances, Peduto and his anti-gun allies have demonstrated an extraordinary indifference to state law, judicial precedents, and the taxpaying constituents who will foot the bill for this political grandstanding. NRA stands ready to use all available legal avenues to ensure that the residents of Pittsburgh are never subject to these unconstitutional and unlawful proposals.

He knows about the ban. He is just doing this for political brownie points with the liberal people. God Bless

Reactionary nonsense. Plays well to the voters though. I'm sure the synagogue shooting wouldn't have happened if this ban had been in place. And as we know (and he knows) that this is certainly not a true statement, then we know (and he know's) that this whole thing is nonsensical media-theater.

Intellectual dishonesty. Well, ... he IS a career politician.

Looks like he lifted NJ's AWB law definitions.

We had this same problem in FL with local jurisdictions passing local ordinances in violation of the stated presumption laws up untill the legislature changed the law to include fines for the officals who passed the laws. Not fines for the city or county but fines for the individual person.

That shit stopped real quick.

quote:

Originally posted by r0gue:
Reactionary nonsense. Plays well to the voters though. I'm sure the synagogue shooting wouldn't have happened if this ban had been in place. And as we know (and he knows) that this is certainly not a true statement, then we know (and he know's) that this whole thing is nonsensical media-theater.

Intellectual dishonesty. Well, ... he IS a career politician.

The real shame of it is he will fight it in court and get smacked down by the state Supreme Court at the taxpayers expense.

Sounds like he also wants to run for president.

Will he be willing to collect the guns himself? And will accept each gun in installments?

The mayor needs to hand out condoms and birth control pills to anyone over the age of 11. Give it a couple of decades and you might shave a few points off the murder rate.

Otherwise, you ain't doin' jack shit.

Maybe build a few churches, too, and shun people who have children outside of wedlock. Stop making it perfectly normal for teenagers to squeeze out babies left and right.

I couldn't be more serious.

States should do something similar to Florida and include penalties into their preemption statutes. Something like this:

Any official of any body that introduces legislation in violation of this act shall be guilty of a class A misdemeanor punishable by a fine of $1,000 and up to one year incarceration.

quote:

Originally posted by r0gue:
Reactionary nonsense. Plays well to the voters though. I'm sure the synagogue shooting wouldn't have happened if this ban had been in place. And as we know (and he knows) that this is certainly not a true statement, then we know (and he know's) that this whole thing is nonsensical media-theater.

Intellectual dishonesty. Well, ... he IS a career politician.

Yeppers. Complete non sense from the mayor that will only cost the city money in court. The synagogue shooter did not live in the the city and these "laws" would not prevent jack shit. I love the logic where someone who is going to commit mass murder is going to be worried about breaking some minor city ordinance.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
The mayor needs to hand out condoms and birth control pills to anyone over the age of 11. Give it a couple of decades and you might shave a few points off the murder rate.

Otherwise, you ain't doin' jack shit.

Maybe build a few churches, too, and shun people who have children outside of wedlock. Stop making it perfectly normal for teenagers to squeeze out babies left and right.

I couldn't be more serious.

Unfortunately Para you are right on. The rate of unwed childbirths and the rate of single parent families has skyrocketed over the past 50 years. Millions of boys raised without a father figure in their lives....of course they will gravitate to the male gangbangers for an authority figure. Throw in generational welfare families with little or no morals and you have the inner city crime problems we have today. In my opinion of course. NONE of these problems would be solved if there were ZERO guns.

No, $1,000 a day would be more reasonable.

Well, if Bloomberg wants it, it must be OK. After all isn't he God's representative on earth?

Op Ed today on the east side of PA parroting the same:

No media bias here...........never rest:

https://www.mcall.com/opinion/...-20181214-story.html

Paul Muschick: It's time for Pittsburgh — and Pennsylvania — to ban assault weapons

A plan to restrict gun ownership in Pittsburgh should heat up the statewide debate in Pennsylvania about reforming firearms laws.

Two months after 11 people were gunned down in a synagogue there, Pittsburgh officials on Friday proposed a ban on assault weapons, large-capacity magazines and modifications such as bump stocks that increase firing rates.

They also want to require people who are dangerous to turn in their guns.

It’s not just Pittsburgh that should be taking those steps. Those should be the laws everywhere. It’s time. Let’s do it.

Those rules wouldn’t prevent all mass shootings, but they could make them harder to commit, and minimize the damage.

Pittsburgh knows it is picking a fight. If the legislation passes, it surely will be challenged in court on the grounds that municipalities cannot pass gun laws that are more restrictive than state laws.

That argument is part of what undermined an Allentown law a decade ago that required gun owners to report a lost or stolen gun within 48 hours.

Firearms Owners Against Crimes, a statewide organization, would sue over the proposals made Friday, President Kim Stolfer said. He said courts repeatedly have struck down attempts by municipalities to preempt state law, including a similar attempt by Pittsburgh in 1993 to ban assault weapons.

“I’m very troubled by this,” he said.

The suspect in the Oct. 27 Tree of Life synagogue shooting, Robert Bowers, used four weapons including an AR-15 assault rifle, according to authorities. All were purchased and possessed legally. Authorities say Bowers told them he “wanted all Jews to die.”

“No one in America wants a country where guns make our schools unsafe for children, families afraid in places of worship, and where our streets are stained every day with innocent blood,” Pittsburgh Mayor Bill Peduto said. “The morality we all share, across every race, gender, ethnicity, region and religion, compels us to take action.”

Officials called on other governments to pursue similar reforms and to challenge state restrictions on their ability to do so.

“The Pennsylvania Constitution guarantees the rights of all people to ‘peace, safety and happiness,’” Councilwoman Erika Strassburger said. “The inability for municipal governments to enact their own common sense-gun control measures defies this core principle.”

Gov. Tom Wolf attended the unveiling of the legislation in Pittsburgh, signaling his continued support for such measures statewide and nationwide.

“He understands the frustration of local communities and residents that more hasn’t been done to address gun violence and keep weapons from dangerous individuals,” Wolf spokesman J.J. Abbott said.

Some state lawmakers were there in support, too. If the Legislature would take action, cities wouldn’t have to.

There have been attempts, but they haven’t gone far. Legislators can try again when they reconvene in January.

Many bills that gained support this year but didn’t make it far enough for final votes should come up again — including one that would ban bump stocks. Another would allow for “extreme risk protection orders” similar to what Pittsburgh proposes, where a judge could issue a protection order that prohibits someone from possessing a gun if law enforcement or immediate family members show that the person poses a significant danger.

Bills to ban assault-style weapons did not advance in the Legislature this year.

The one law that was enacted this year requires people with a court-issued protection from abuse order or domestic violence conviction to relinquish their firearms to law enforcement or a licensed firearms dealer within 24 hours. They used to be able to keep their weapons for 60 days, and could give them to a friend or relative for safekeeping.

If lawmakers don’t have the courage to take further action, there may be another way for them to allow cities such as Pittsburgh to address gun violence themselves.

State Rep. Dan Frankel, a Democrat from that area, said this week that he will introduce legislation that would allow municipal and county governments to write firearms laws that are more-restrictive than state law.

“These episodes of mass violence, when coupled with the everyday firearms related violence, leave communities seeking local solutions,” Frankel wrote in a legislative sponsorship memo filed Wednesday. “It is time for us to move legislation that will expand the ability of local governments to respond to mass shootings, terror attacks and ongoing violence within their municipal borders.”

He’s right. If state lawmakers won’t take a stand against gun violence, local officials should be able to.


paul.muschick@mcall.com

610-820-6582

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
The mayor needs to hand out condoms and birth control pills to anyone over the age of 11. Give it a couple of decades and you might shave a few points off the murder rate.

Mr Mayor needs to be pumping birth control drugs into the water system. The same way they add chlorine to the system.

I love Pittsburg. Actually, I love flying eastward over Pittsburg on a clear day. Past Pittsburg and the beautiful Allegheny Plateau you can see how the Allegheny Mountains formed a natural barrier to westward colonial expansion.

At the time of the 1791-1794 Whiskey Rebellion, Pittsburg was a hamlet of about 100 shacks; grain was too bulky to transport but whiskey canoe'd fine. As the de facto currency of the region, the new government tried to tax it.

Pennsylvania has long been separated through geographical features but it has been united as a Commonwealth since 1787. If Willie thinks he can mess with our state laws and strong tradition of firearms ownership, he must be smoking too much of the wacky tobacky recently legalized statewide for "medical" use.

Funny that the mayor thinks selective following of laws is a solution for those of his political bent. I wonder if he would be as tolerant of gun owners also ignoring laws they disagree with.

quote:

Originally posted by SpinZone:
We had this same problem in FL with local jurisdictions passing local ordinances in violation of the stated presumption laws up untill the legislature changed the law to include fines for the officals who passed the laws. Not fines for the city or county but fines for the individual person.

That shit stopped real quick.

Yep, and those penalties also included potential jail sentences. For state preemption to work, the state needs to put penalties in place to stop this sort of BS by this grandstanding garbage.

quote:

Originally posted by sgalczyn:
Op Ed today on the east side of PA parroting the same:

No media bias here...........never rest:

https://www.mcall.com/opinion/...-20181214-story.html

Oh my god, the stupid is painful in that article.

quote:

Originally posted by cruiser68:

Unfortunately Para you are right on. The rate of unwed childbirths and the rate of single parent families has skyrocketed over the past 50 years. Millions of boys raised without a father figure in their lives....of course they will gravitate to the male gangbangers for an authority figure. Throw in generational welfare families with little or no morals and you have the inner city crime problems we have today. In my opinion of course. NONE of these problems would be solved if there were ZERO guns.

Before the welfare system was in place only 20% of black households were single parent families. Since welfare it's now 70%.