Mayor Nutter defiantly signs five gun laws

[Kate]

The mayor is seriously asking for trouble with this one. He's going to have a hard time finding any officer enforcing these unconstitutional laws! The mayor is out of his mind!



Council's measures appear to fly in the face of state law and legal precedent. The NRA says it will sue.

Mayor Nutter likened himself and City Council members yesterday to the band of rebels who formed this country as he signed five new gun-control laws that defy the state legislature and legal precedent.

"Almost 232 years ago, a group of concerned Americans took matters in their own hands and did what they needed to do by declaring that the time had come for a change," Nutter said as he signed the bills in front of a table of confiscated weapons outside the police evidence room in City Hall.

"We are going to make ourselves independent of the violence that's been taking place in this city for far too long," he said.

The five laws - called everything from unconstitutional to criminal by critics - do the following:

Limit handgun purchases to one a month.

Require lost or stolen firearms to be reported to police within 24 hours.

Prohibit individuals under protection-from-abuse orders from possessing guns if ordered by the court.

Allow removal of firearms from "persons posing a risk of imminent personal injury" to themselves or others.

Outlaw the possession and sale of certain assault weapons.

Nutter said he would begin to enforce the laws immediately, with the exception of the one-gun-a-month requirement, which takes effect in six months.

He and Council are in for a fight, however. The city has tried and failed for three decades to buck the 1974 state law that reserves gun regulation to the state legislature. The state's preeminence appeared to be cemented in a 1996 Supreme Court ruling that allowed the legislature to prevent Philadelphia and Pittsburgh from enacting local gun laws.

Recent efforts include a 2005 referendum in which city voters, by a 4-1 ratio, demanded that the state allow the city to pass its own gun laws. Council members Darrell L. Clarke and Donna Reed Miller sponsored a set of gun-control measures bills last year, then sued the legislature to allow them to move forward. That case is pending.

National Rifle Association spokesman John Hohenwarter said he expected the organization to sue "within a short time frame."

Kim Stolfer, vice chairman of the Pennsylvania Sportsmen's Association's legislative committee, said the organization was considering its legal options and suggested that the enactment of the laws was a criminal act.

"He's committing five misdemeanor crimes," Stolfer said. "What kind of message is he sending when he and City Council are willing to commit crimes for issues that are not going to work?"

Nutter and Council are not likely to find a great deal of support in the legislature.

State Representative John M. Perzel (R., Phila.) said through a spokesman that the laws were unconstitutional. House Speaker Dennis M. O'Brien (R. Phila.) did not return a call for comment, and State Sen. Vincent J. Fumo (D., Phila.) declined to comment.

Even the city's fiercest proponent of stricter gun laws in the legislature, Democratic Rep. Dwight Evans, offered only lukewarm support.

Evans spokeswoman Johnna Pro said: "No one . . . feels the frustration" of city leaders more than Evans, so he would not criticize them.

But Evans, she said, also is a leader in the House of Representatives and "believes that everyone needs to allow the process to work, even though the process, at times, may be excruciatingly slow and incredibly unresponsive."

Phil Goldsmith, president of the gun-control advocacy group CeaseFire PA, said "it's worth trying" to enact and test the laws.

"It's a shame the city has to do something like this because the legislature has failed to exercise its responsibilities," Goldsmith said.

Council members Clarke and Miller pared their package down from nine bills, including two that would create registries of gun sales, to the five that they say would stand a constitutional challenge.

Nutter embraced the idea of taking "direct action" to challenge a legal status quo to protect city residents.

"If we all sat around bemoaning what the law was on a regular basis," Nutter said. "I'd probably still be picking cotton somewhere as opposed to being mayor of the city of Philadelphia."


Source

[smcc360]

If only he could have worked the slavery/racism angle into it, I'd be able to-

"If we all sat around bemoaning what the law was on a regular basis," Nutter said. "I'd probably still be picking cotton somewhere as opposed to being mayor of the city of Philadelphia."

... oh, there it is. Good job, Mayor of Crimetown.

[Norm357]

Since the State of PA has premption on gun laws, nutter and any officer who tries to enforce these new, illegal city gun laws, should be put in jail.

[Cat_Doc]

"Almost 232 years ago, a group of concerned Americans took matters in their own hands and did what they needed to do by declaring that the time had come for a change," Nutter said as he signed the bills in front of a table of confiscated weapons outside the police evidence room in City Hall.

What a dumbass quote by this clown.

It was because concerned Americans, almost 232 years ago, had firearms that this nation was able to break free of being royal servants.

[mxwelch]

Allow removal of firearms from "persons posing a risk of imminent personal injury" to themselves or others.

This is the icing on the cake. Just who decides this? It's not a slippery slope, it's a sheer dropoff.

[ChesCopPodz]

Numbers 1 and 3 are in effect in Virginia already.

3 I actually agree with though.

[danninator]

I actually don't totally disagree with these, and still consider myself very pro-gun.

2 through 5 are already in effect in my state. Number 1 is under a similiar idea(apply for purchase permit, that expires after x amount of days).

The last one I disagree with. We have a rule of three here with "assualt weapons" Handgun grip= no go, high capacity mag=no go and the "ability" to be made automatic= no go.

[mxwelch]

Limiting handgun purchases to one per month.

This has done NOTHING to impact crime. Waste of time. I still consider it a violation of the Constitution personally.

Require lost or stolen firearms to be reported to police within 24 hours.

Not a bad idea until we start charging people who had no idea they had been robbed. The "I keep it in a sock drawer and don't look at it daily" sort of thing. Other than that no problems.

Prohibit individuals under protection-from-abuse orders from possessing guns if ordered by the court.

Little uneasy about this. I know a friend who got a domestic against him because he pushed his wife away who struck him in the face multiple times. He can't posses a weapon because of it. The idea is sound but the people who sit on the bench many times are not. Let's be honest. It's already against the law to kill your spouse so would having this court ordered stop someone who plans on doing it really work? Having the court have the power to deny a Constitutional right without a trial and conviction isn't right. If the party involved has been tried and convicted then the domestic statues should cover it.

Allow removal of firearms from "persons posing a risk of imminent personal injury" to themselves or others.

As mentioned before. Who makes that call? The ATF have already shown us what happens when people are allowed to have free reign in regards to definition. Many in Congress would consider every gun owner a danger to themselves and others for simply owning a gun.

Outlaw the possession and sale of certain assault weapons.

I see we're gonna beat this damn dead horse again. Assault weapon = select fire weapon, not an AR. Full autos are so severely restricted now it isn't funny. Having a frigging plastic handgrip or a bayonet lug doesn't do one thing to make it more dangerous. These are just the first target for the ban and I can see that they still haven't given up. To those paying attention they've mentioned high power sniper rifles are next. You know, your grandfather's 700BDL bolt action.

[bhanson]

I actually don't totally disagree with these, and still consider myself very pro-gun.

2 through 5 are already in effect in my state. Number 1 is under a similiar idea(apply for purchase permit, that expires after x amount of days).

The last one I disagree with. We have a rule of three here with "assualt weapons" Handgun grip= no go, high capacity mag=no go and the "ability" to be made automatic= no go.

If I understand the the above all semi automatic firearms are not allowed in your state. ANY can be modified to full auto. :confused:

[Taz_bb2]

Limit handgun purchases to one a month.

So much for a free society. :rolleyes: Next it'll be no more than 1 hamburger per month (2 if you eat it without the bread), and 1 alcoholic beverage per week under the direct supervision of an ATF agent to ensure proper collection of taxes and protection against misuse.

GUN LAWS ONLY AFFECT LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS, NOT CRIMIALS!!!

Require lost or stolen firearms to be reported to police within 24 hours.

Require??? Or what? What if the person is out of town for 2 weeks?

Prohibit individuals under protection-from-abuse orders from possessing guns if ordered by the court.
If the suspect wants to kill the victim, passing an anti-possession law isn't going to stop it.:rolleyes:

Allow removal of firearms from "persons posing a risk of imminent personal injury" to themselves or others.

Like MX said, wayyyy too subjective. I could walk up to some gothic looking punk and say that he poses a risk to himself based on the 84 spikes his has on his pants, and take any weapon he or she may possess. Sounds like a police state to me.

Outlaw the possession and sale of certain assault weapons.

Another feel good attack on the Constitution. Next will be gas guzzling SUV's because of the danger they pose to the environment.

What a panszy-*** society we have become. :mad::rolleyes:

[frezrbrn]

ANY can be modified to full auto. :confused:

some even modify themselves after a few thousand rounds ....LOL

on a more serious note, what if they did succeed in getting all the guns away from the law abiding folks in the area? wouldn't criminals from elsewhere show up like ladies at a 50%off sale?

cotton pickin liberals.....:p

[Super Six 5]

What a dumbass quote by this clown.

It was because concerned Americans, almost 232 years ago, had firearms that this nation was able to break free of being royal servants.

That's racist!

:D

[BP348]

The NRA will take care of this.

[Drew27k9]

The NRA will take care of this.

They won't have to. The Philadelphia D.A. stated that she would not enforce the new laws and called them unconstitutional.

Just four days after Mayor Nutter and City Council celebrated enactment of a package of five gun-control laws, reality arrived in the form of District Attorney Lynne M. Abraham.

Speaking yesterday at a City Council meeting, Abraham told members that she believed the new laws were unconstitutional and that she would not enforce them.

Source: http://www.philly.com/inquirer/local..._gun_laws.html

[hitnrun]

In CA, you can only buy one NEW handgun every 30 days. PPT handguns aren't limited.

In CA, if you are adjudicated mentally deficient, or arrested for being nutzo (ie: 5150 W&I, danger to self/others, etc) any firearms you own can be lawfully seized.

In CA, if you are involved in a restraining order/protective order, you can't possess a firearm or buy any.

In CA, you are required to report your firearm missing within so many days/hours or you become a criminal yourself in nearly every major city (local ordinances everywhere).

In CA, possession and sale of assualt weapons is severely restricted (meaning there are no assault weapons for normal people).


Well, that's 5 out of 5. I'd like to be the first to welcome PA to the big leagues of left wing politics.:rolleyes: