I saw this posted on the Reuter's site.
http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE48P8VO20080926
http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE48P8VO20080926
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
He blamed this week's fatal shooting of a Philadelphia police officer on the state's lax gun laws that he said allowed the assailant to use an illegal weapon.
State lawmakers were being "stunningly hypocritical" by claiming to support the police while failing to pass what Nutter called reasonable gun laws.
"You are either on the side of the criminals or you are on the side of the law-abiding people of Philadelphia," Nutter told a news conference.
Good news....Still, I wouldn't want to live in Philly.
He blamed this week's fatal shooting of a Philadelphia police officer on the state's lax gun laws that he said allowed the assailant to use an illegal weapon.
State lawmakers were being "stunningly hypocritical" by claiming to support the police while failing to pass what Nutter called reasonable gun laws.
"You are either on the side of the criminals or you are on the side of the law-abiding people of Philadelphia," Nutter told a news conference.
You are either on the side of the criminals or you are on the side of the law-abiding people of Philadelphia," Nutter told a news conference.
A Pennsylvania state court ruled on Friday that Philadelphia does not have the right to set its own gun laws, striking down five measures passed by the city council last year.
"You are either on the side of the criminals or you are on the side of the law-abiding people of Philadelphia," Nutter told a news conference.
that is excellent news! Boston needs to be told the same thing about having its own mini AWB
Wouldn't do any good as MA has a preemption law that allows communities to pass gun control laws that are stricter than the states.
Wouldn't do any good as MA has a preemption law that allows communities to pass gun control laws that are stricter than the states.
2. Hawaii, Illinois and Nebraska do not have statewide firearm preemption of local ordinances. Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York have preemption through judicial ruling, not statute. In Massachusetts, local ordinances may be imposed if approved by the state legislature.
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=48
And what "preemption law" might that be?
PREEMPTION - LOCAL GUN LAWS
May municipalities enact law stronger than the state's? Yes
State law allows local cities or counties to enact local gun laws to regulate firearms that are stronger than state law or that fill loopholes in state law. There is no �preemption" of local government authority to regulate guns.
For example: Boston restricts possession by minors, restricts assault weapons and restricts large-capacity ammuntion magazines.
In a 4-3 decision, the court upheld an appeals court ruling that had struck down the city of Clyde's 2004 ban on guns in its parks because it conflicts with the state's multifaceted con- cealed-carry law. Clyde is southwest of Sandusky.
The ruling not only eliminates gun bans in Independence and Cleveland Heights parks but also threatens several Cleveland gun restrictions and all but kills further efforts by cities to trump or challenge the 4-year-old state law.
"The main impact is that it is going to restrict municipalities, city councils and so forth from restricting the rights of Ohio citizens who carry concealed weapons in public areas," said Patrick Lewis, a Cleveland attorney and member of the conservative Federalist Society, who was not involved in the case.
Chief Justice Thomas Moyer, who voted with the minority, was more direct, saying, "Implementation of the state statute strikes a severe blow to the underlying principles of self-government."
The question for the court was whether the concealed-carry law was meant by state legislators to be applied evenly statewide.
The court decided that it was, dismissing Clyde's argument that it was exercising "home rule," a state constitutional provision that allows municipalities to approve ordinances that conflict with state rules.
http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/122181307155850.xml&coll=2
Cities can't ban guns from parks, Ohio Supreme Court rules
Friday, September 19, 2008
It is not "pre-emption."
Quite the opposite, as the municipality has to ask permission.
However, the "wide latitude" and "broad discretion" granted 351 individual chiefs, the excesses of which are generally ignored by the courts, create a sort of de facto "pre-emption."
There - beat you to it. LenS!
Nope, you got the load, Scriv.
It may (or may not, I suppose) be important to remember that decisions such as this have almost nothing to do with firearms or gun rights
Not really - it means the difference between r=f(state) and r=min(f(state),f(local)), where the later cannot exceed the former and may very well be less.
Got it - it's all matter of what "having almost nothing to do with" means.
Well, it IS a sign of such acceptance, as legislatures will no longer tolerate assaults on the possession and carrying of firearms by lesser governments within the state.You are quite right; my phraseology was quite imprecise.
My concern was that some folks seemed to be reading this decision (and others of like import) as evidence of a trend toward greater public acceptance of personal ownership of firearms. That trend may be real, but decisions such as this are not its product or its evidence.
How the heck does a guy with the name 'Nutter' get elected mayor?