Judge strikes down some Philadelphia gun laws (PA)

[davepc]

Source: Philadelphia Inquirer

A Philadelphia judge today sided with the National Rifle Association and struck down city ordinances banning assault weapons and limiting handgun purchases to one a month.
In a blow to the city's attempt to write its own gun laws, Common Pleas Court Judge Jane Cutler-Greenspan ruled that Philadelphia should be permanently prevented from enforcing the laws that the City Council passed unanimously in April.

But Greenspan gave city officials a consolation prize by declining to strike down three other laws on procedural grounds, indicating that the NRA and other plaintiffs did not have legal standing to challenge those laws.

Lawyers on both sides of the emotional issue hailed the split decision in a positive light.

"It's a partial victory," said Douglas I. Oliver, Mayor Nutter's spokesman. He said that the judge's decision to let three laws stand "shows that this city's actions were legal and not actions of a renegade government."

...



Read more: http://www.philly.com/inquirer/breaking/news_breaking/20080603_Judge_strikes_down_some_Philadelphia_gun_laws.html

[michreject]

1. Philadelphia was trying to usurp the authority of the state

Nothing more. The state has these issues covered in state law.

[bean fidhleir]

23. The state has no rights there either, under the Constitution.

It's really horrifying how willing some of us are to have our rights eliminated. It lends support to those who say most people are peasants at heart.

If I'm not mistaken, the only one of our rights called out in the Constitution that hasn't been assaulted is the one about quartering soldiers - and I seem to remember reading once that during the Civil War even that one got pushed aside.

During the Revolution, Jefferson wrote in his journal that he could already see people focusing exclusively on making money, and that he feared we would allow our rights to be more and more burdened until, to recover them, we'd have to have another revolution (a "convulsion").

[michreject]

47. The state has powers

People have rights.

[bean fidhleir]

53. Fair catch. (nt)

[primavera]

49. How do you figure?

What Constitutional right is the state assaulting, as you put it? You wouldn't perchance be referring to the Second Amendment, which long-standing legal precendent has interpreted to convey a right to well-regulated militias to bear arms, would you? I may be mistaken, but I didn't see any reference here to restricting the rights of militias to bear arms. :shrug:

I know, I know, gun nuts choose to read the Second Amendment selectively, arguing that the framers were on crack or something when they included the "well-regulated militia" proviso, that they really didn't mean to include that qualification, that what the framers really intended to say was that anyone and everyone can own and use any kind of weapon of mass destruction they please. However, under that far-fetched interpretation, then none of the laws restricting access to military hardware could be considered constitutional, and, self-evidently, the courts have not found such laws to be unconstitional, ergo, they have not embraced your interpretation of the Second Amendment. Admittedly, with our current right-wing Supreme Court, the DC gun case may well overturn the existing legal wisdom on the subject of the Second Amendment. But you and the NRA aren't there yet.

[bean fidhleir]

55. Of course I'm referring to the Second Amendment

And the fact that some judges have violated their oaths to defend the Constitution doesn't mean that their traitorous decisions are legitimate. For heaven's sake, the racists sitting on the SCOTUS bench in 1858 had no problem declaring that Dred Scott and his spouse weren't human beings!

Anyone - and I do mean anyone - who can read and comprehend the English language need do no more than read through the minutes of the 1787 convention, the ratification debates, and the correspondence of the Framers. Those docs offer abundant evidence that the *personal* right to own arms and use them in defense of self, family, and country was right up there near the top of the Framers' list. That right, like the rights to practice any or no religion, speak one's mind, gather with others to talk, and petition the ruling class for redress, were considered absolutely fundamental sine-qua-non departures from the laws of England.

In England at that time, if you were a prole you had almost no rights at all. You could be dragged off the street and, in fact if not name, enslaved by being made a soldier or seaman for life or til they didn't want you any more. You could be exiled from home and family. Your poverty was a crime. You could be attacked by saber-wielding gentry on horseback for doing nothing more than listening to pro-democracy speakers - and you couldn't fight back.

And so the Second Amendment reads "...shall not be infringed". Not "shall not be infringed unless powerful people really want to", or "shall not be infringed except during July of every fourth year", or "shall not be infringed except by the courts". Nope: "shall not be infringed" period.

[primavera]

56. If that's what the framers intended...

... then why do you suppose they didn't just say that anyone and everyone has the inalienable right to bear any kind of weapon? Why did they add that qualifier about well-regulated militias? Is it your contention that that qualification was slipped in by subversive elements or something? Well, if so, I guess it's a pity that the Constitution was ratified with that language in it, because, as our Constituion stands now, the right to bear arms is tied to well-regulated militias, of which not every Tom, Dick, and Harry happens to be a member. You may consider that a violation of the judiciary's obligation to protect the Constituion, but there's 200 years of legal precedent and a vast, overwhelming majority of existing legal opinion which disagrees with your interpretation. If the whole world tells you you're drunk, maybe you're the one who ought to sit down.

[bean fidhleir]

57. They apparently couldn't imagine a future in which the language would

have changed so much.

English grammar then, like German then and still, made a more liberal use of commas than we're used to because it looked back at Latin as a model (which is where we get the now-ignored rules such as "sentences must not be ended with a preposition" and the prohibition against double negation).

And many words have altered their meanings. "Regulated", for example, didn't mean "controlled" so much as "trained or guided so as to produce a predictable effect". The "Regulator" brand of clock, for example, was named because it is (allegedly) so much more accurate that other clocks should be guided (i.e. set) by it. And the "Regular Army" is an army that has a common standard that makes its behavior predictable. And a "regulation" is a description of how people should behave. And so forth.

So when they wrote about "a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state", they meant that the only sure way to repel an invading force is to have a militia, which they understood to be an armed *civilian* force of self-selected volunteers that is "well-regulated": trained to a common standard so that everyone has a shared idea of how to behave and what to expect. Volunteer fire departments are organized the same way, and were then, too. Everyone who wants to belong, belongs, and knows that when the bell sounds they're expected to drop everything and come running. The key concept here is that members of such groups are civilians and volunteers, and the penalty for not showing up is social disapproval not a jail cell.

When you cite all the judicial precedent as though judges are divinely inspired and infallible in their pronunciamenti, you're acting the part of a peasant, hat in hand. You think that the a-hole who declared Dred and Harriet Scott to be non-humans was RIGHT? Me, I think he was an a-hole and unfit for any position within a mile of a courthouse.

You're on the side of the ruling class in this issue, not the people. We are supposed to be a free people, no? Well, free people have ALL rights. Not just the ones called out in the Constitution, but ALL rights of every kind. Our rights are limited only by what we *communally* choose to surrender in order to get the benefits of social existence. So far we have not been quite so stupid as to surrender our right to own the means of defending ourselves.

We get screwed every day because so many of us are willing to let our rights be taken from us. How the hell did the Gang Of Five get away with appointing Bush President? Because we did nothing, that's how. How did the GOP get away with stealing the next 3 elections? Same answer. How the HELL did Bush get away with committing a monsterous, atrocious, ongoing crime against humanity IN OUR NAME? Same answer.

Don't be a Tory. Tories are disgusting. If you can't bring yourself to stand up for all our rights, at least stand up for those actually called out in the damned Constitution.

[derby378]

58. Seriously, you need to read US V. EMERSON and educate yourself

:hi:

[-..__...]

2. Kudos to the NRA...

and DA Lynne Abraham for their support of the PA (and US), Constitution...

(from a more recent article)...

Even though the city may now be able to enforce some of the laws, there may be another roadblock at home. District Attorney Lynne Abraham has said that all five of the laws are unconstitutional and that she won't enforce them

http://www.philly.com/dailynews/local/20080604_Judge_rules_that_city_can_enforce_3_of_5_local_gun_laws.html

"It's a partial victory," said Douglas I. Oliver, Mayor Nutter's spokesman. He said that the judge's decision to let three laws stand "shows that this city's actions were legal and not actions of a renegade government."

Uhhh... no brainiac... try again...

But Greenspan gave city officials a consolation prize by declining to strike down three other laws on procedural grounds, indicating that the NRA and other plaintiffs did not have legal standing to challenge those laws.

Which... will undoubtedly be struck down on appeal. :smoke:

[Indenturedebtor]

4. YAY I can buy assault weapons and 10 handguns a month again...

Because I need crowd suppressing assault rifles and 10 handguns to protect myself from the Reds :eyes:

I actually need assault rifles to kill cops, and I need 1,000 guns a year so that I can turn around and give them to crazy people and children who can't buy a gun themselves.

Blah.

[villager]

10. Yes! Your NRA membership dues go back into training you to *demand* such "freedoms!"

n/t

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

43. I suggest you not commit those crimes.

Killing cops and being a straw purchaser will land you in jail for quite some time. If you are going to buy guns then I would stick to peaceful law abiding activities with them.

David

[michreject]

48. self confessed felon nt

[villager]

3. The gun cultists, as ever, have been traduced by the NRA

into thinking they "need" more than one handgun a month (!), assault rifles in the city, etc.

They are just as led-by-the-nose as urban assault drivers manipulated by advertising into thinking they "need" Hummers, vast arid homes, etc., etc., etc...

[Indenturedebtor]

5. Exactly. n/t

[gaijinlaw]

6. Or, alternatively...

they may have chosen all by themselves to purchase and maintain firearms and petition their government to protect the right of themselves and others to do so.

[krispos42]

12. No no no, we're all part of the NRA cult

You must have missed the memo. I'll PM you this week's issue of Gun Porn. And remember that our national convention is in St. Louis, so pack your funny hat, makeup, and ritual beads.

I see that you are new here. Have you received an official "DU Gun Thread Alert" pager? It beeps whenever a gun-related thread is posted in General Discussion or LBN.

Or you could just look to the sky for the "Gun Light".

:crazy:

:-)

[slackmaster]

7. The issue is actually the rule of law, and it parallels what has happened in San Francisco

In both cases the state has certain powers. Municipalities cannot override those powers.

[villager]

11. right. well, the NRA then will use your membership dollars to override *state* laws, too

..and claim it's a "Federal thing," and then will override Federal laws.

Just like your favorite oil and car companies. The NRA is a lobbying group for special interests. Nothing more.

[slackmaster]

18. And if whatever Federal laws you are talking about turn out to be unconstitutional

More power to them. And to we the people, who end up with freedoms restored.

[villager]

20. you're an ideal little NRA-bot, yes?

All talking points dutifully repeated, etc...

[slackmaster]

25. Actually I am not now nor have I ever been an NRA member

I just thought that in the interest of CIVILITY it would be better not to get petty about that aspect of your post.

I guess I was mistaken.

[krispos42]

30. Now now now, slack

You know that just by touching guns your sold gets transferred to the NRA! Just ask villager...

[villager]

36. "bot" is out of line, and I apologize. And yet, you have all their talking points down

It is possible to recite GM's talking points on climate change, without actually being a GM employee, for instance.

That would seem to be the analogous case here.

[slackmaster]

37. If you knew me better you would understand the philosophical underpinnings of my responses

In brief I describe myself as a Constitutionalist/libertarian Democrat, pro-choice on things whenever possible, insisting on players at all levels playing by the rules. A rogue municipal government making up its own arbitrary restrictions that run contrary to state law is no better than a rogue cop pulling people over because he doesn't like the way they look, or a rogue President usurping Congressional authority to declare legitimate war.

It's just so much easier make a knee-jerk consignment of someone to some kind of pariah group than to make a real effort to gain mutual understanding.

Apology accepted.

[villager]

38. okay, now that we can actually talk: Is it really "rogue" if a city is dealing with out of control

homicide rates, passes a law in response -- supported by a majority of its citizens -- and an outside special interest group like the NRA (a lobbying group for gun manufacturers) comes in, and --flush with resources (as corporate special interests always are) -- is able to get such laws overturned?

[slackmaster]

39. If state law prohibits a city from making up its own gun laws, then yes it is rogue

Keep in mind that the NRA, as evil as you may think of them, was actually protecting interests of the minority of Philly citizens who did not agree with the city violating state law.

If the state law does not allow enough flexibility for the cities, maybe it needs to be changed. I'm sure there are ways to do that legally.

Or maybe Philly should be looking at other ways of addressing the crime problems.

[villager]

40. And you will therefore support the state law?

I'm afraid once the NRA uses its industry resources to start combating the state laws (as they have, here in California), your rhetoric will change, and suddenly, those "restrictions" on the amount & lethality of various weapons will be challenged to protect the alleged gun worshipping minority -- never mind the majority that wants safe streets....

[slackmaster]

46. Yes, of course

A new law would be the law.

I'm afraid once the NRA uses its industry resources to start combating the state laws (as they have, here in California)...

I have no idea what you are referring to here, there aren't any real challenges to CA gun laws going on now (and if there was one I would very likely know about it - I am on several firearms-related mailing lists and I do surf gun forums frequently). We've seen nothing but more and more restrictive laws here for many years. They'e gotten ridiculous, with legislators who don't know dick about weapons trying to micro-manage gun design into completely unproven technologies.

Everyone has a right to challenge laws and to try to get them changed. "Industry resources" are ultimately people, with interests of course, but they have rights to work in favor of those interests as does every person.

[tofurkey]

31. I didn't know

there were assault rifles and handguns when they wrote the Constitution. Weren't muskets in vogue for well-armed militias at that time?

Personally, I would like to have a bazooka, Uzi, tank or flamethrower for "protection", and I'm sure no one would object, as I could similarly argue its my Constitutional right. No?

[slackmaster]

33. There certainly were handguns, and the rifles used by soldiers were available to anyone

Personally, I would like to have a bazooka, Uzi, tank or flamethrower for "protection", and I'm sure no one would object, as I could similarly argue its my Constitutional right. No?

Since it's not at all clear what laws Villager was referring to, I can't really make any sense of your question.

But flamethrowers are not regulated items, a tank is just a vehicle and not regulated for private use, and if you really want a bazooka or an Uzi you can probably get one, depending on what state you live in (and whether you REALLY want one - honestly).

[bean fidhleir]

41. "I would like to have a bazooka...."

Well, *I* wouldn't object because it is, indeed, your right under the Constitution and we should be defending each and every one of our rights with both tooth and nail. I don't know about the tank because I don't think any ordinary people back then owned a cannon, so we don't know what the Framers would have thought about it.

But any infantry arms? Sure. Buy as many as you want. The Framers were crystal-clear about that. The country had just gone through a war to get loose of a monarchy that was highly classist, and that made sure the rabble couldn't defend themselves when, e.g., the gentry started slashing at them with sabers to punish them for listening to pro-democracy speakers.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

44. The VPC will use your membership dollars to continue to try and violate constitutional rights.

Gun control groups are lobbying groups for special interests, nothing more.

David

[krispos42]

8. Or as led by those that are manipulated into thinking they need "assualt weapons" bans

Or other such limitations.


I live in Minnesota. I can by as MANY handguns and semiautomatic rifles as I want to, any day of the week.

So how many have I bought in the past week?

Zero.

Month?

Zero.

Year?

Zero.

3 years (how long I've lived here)?

Zero.


Gee, it looks like how available firearms are has nothing to do with how many I buy! In fact, it looks more like finances deterimine that!

I haven't had the money to buy a gun and, gosh darn it, I haven't bought any!

[NickB79]

13. I live in a city, and have an assault rifle

AR-15's are VERY common at the local indoor gun range I go to for target practice.

I don't really NEED an AR-15 to punch holes in paper. I guess I could just throw rocks at cans in the parking lot, but that's not nearly as much fun as shooting a rifle :-)

[Indenturedebtor]

15. The problem is that they're designed to kill lots of people fast

Should we all be able to buy nuclear weapons? Isn't that covered under the "right to bear arms?"

How about hand grenades? Poison gas anyone? Or ooo I know... anthrax! YAY :woohoo:

[villager]

16. As with climate change deniers, "violence deniers" will insist assault rifles are utterly benign!

n/t

[Indenturedebtor]

17. Yes they'll point to one example of an AR-15 being used to stop a crime

And ignore all the crimes committed with them.

"But the criminals would just learn how to fling 80 ninja stars a second" Riiiiight.

[villager]

19. exactly -- like Rushy finding some weather anomaly to deny all climate change stats...

n/t

[krispos42]

26. Yet our homicide and violenc crime rates are down

Despite all those evil nasty semiautomatic rifles being strewn all over our streets.





Ah, but here's a bone for you! Our multiple-homicide rate is up!



See, it used to be that 97% of our homicides were single-victim events. Now it's down to 95%!

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

42. So are you saying that an AR-15 can fire 80 rounds a second?

[Pavulon]

51. Stabbings outnumber rifle killings

the body stacking gang killers are not using that weapon to kill each other with.

[krispos42]

21. Ooo, look at the straw!

Think about discrimitory versus non-discrimatory weapons. An "assault weapon", besides being an arbitrary and perjorative term, is a semi-automatic firearm. One shot per trigger pull. It's a discrimatory weapon.

Hand grenades, nukes, poision gas, antrax, etc., are all non-discrimatory weapons.

Put down the strawman, you're getting all dusty and full of mites.

[Indenturedebtor]

24. So their not better at non-discriminatory violence like drive by shootings and school massacres? n/t

[krispos42]

29. Guess not

Virginia Tech schooting: handguns
Columbine: handgun and pump-action shotgun
Norther State shooting: pump-action shotgun
That shooting at a Chicago woman's clothing store: handgun, IIRC

[NickB79]

35. Yet murders with assault rifles are exceedingly rare

For all their touted benefits to violence, they are rarely used in crime despite being available for many decades now.

[bean fidhleir]

45. "Should we all be able to buy nuclear weapons?"

Probably not. Recall that the motivation for the Bill Of Rights was that the US not become like Britain was at the time (and for nearly 200 years after, in many respects), where class distinctions were enforced and proles like us had few or no rights.

In the new States of America, there was to be no standing army, the defense of the state to be kept in the hands of the citizenry. The very notion that people were *citizens* was a big departure, since the people in Britain were *subjects*: they were owned, in some sense, by the monarch. Here, people were assumed to own themselves. BIG departure, even though remnants of subjection continue to pollute our lives (e.g., personal choices such as sex partners and activities, recreational drug use, and even suicide being treated as crimes).

Had nukes been around then, it's unlikely they would have been contemplated as useful for defense of the state, since they tend to not only clear the world of all life for miles around but make the area uninhabitable too. Likewise poison gas and bio weapons, though their effects don't linger so much. Grenades, though, might have been okay, though bombs were still seen mostly as an engineering tool, to bring down walls or disable cannon that had to be abandoned. War was a highly stylized activity back then.

The idea that weapons should be limited to the agents of the government was very much a Tory idea at the time, so it's amusing (in a certain unfunny way) to see it being embraced today by people who would doubtless be furious if they were called Tories.

[Pavulon]

52. arms vs ordinance

small arms should be common sense. Crew served weapons like nuclear weapons and mlrs weapon systems are not 2nd amendment.

[onehandle]

9. Oh great. Just what Philly needs. More gun violence.

Philly's police force will be so happy.

[krispos42]

14. Why will there be more gun violence?

The laws never took effect.

[onehandle]

22. Red herring, but I'll bite.

Now the gun centric crowd will buy like Hell and come out shooting.

How's that?

[davepc]

27. so because a law that was never in effect was struck down ppl are going to go on rampages

interesting.

[slackmaster]

28. Historically, here in California, there are only two things that trigger increased gun sales

Riots, and pending restrictions on what kinds of guns people can buy.

[ckramer]

32. Hmmm... should I buy a gun or should I fill up the tank?

This judge is stupid.

[slackmaster]

34. The judge applied the law as it is written and generally understood

Therefore he is STUPID?

:crazy:

[ckramer]

50. Another judge can apply the same law and ban guns

Yep, changing a judge makes a difference.

[slackmaster]

54. A judge who goes against state law deserves to be impeached

:hi: