pa2a.org


Share Thread:  
HB80 Passes - Corbett Will Sign! I'm Preparing a LAWSUIT
#51
The last time Mr. Prince went to an appeals court over this, the court stated that municipalities can post signs and have rules controlling access to their properties. They may not be able to pass criminal statutes, but they can put up "No Guns" signs and prosecute people for trespassing that violate the conditions of entry.

Right now there are very few such signs, and most municipalities remove them when alerted of illegal ordinances. I am concerned that lawsuits are going to change that by bringing attention to the fact that municipalities CAN ban firearms all they want. That would be a change for the worse. At a minimum, I don't think there is case law saying otherwise.

Similarly, it wouldn't surprise me to see "lost and stolen" laws pass a judicial test (lib lawyer in a black robe jerking off). Does anybody have information to the contrary regarding the wording of preemption? I think possession, sale, and transport could be blown off by a judge very simply in this regard. Right now these laws are not generally enforced. Lose, and 1/3 of the Commonwealth will have these laws in a week and they will be enforced.
I produced precise formulations for what you call, "Black Powder," for General Washington. If not for me, you would be speaking the Queen's English today. Say my name, which you cannot find with an internet search, proud to be a member of pa2a.org since Sep 2012.
Reply
#52
ArcticSplash I am begging you not to do this. We have a process started to address all the townships that are in violation of preemption. What we don't need are lawsuits flying all over the place. Let us do this in a clear cut fashion.
[Image: 180-180-dark.png] [Image: zrt-banner.jpg]

"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities - Voltaire"
Reply
#53
ArcticSplash doing it the right way is never gonna happen. This guy wants to be the next "famous" pro 2A guy. Viper fell into it by open carrying, this guy will do it by "being the first" to test HB80. Ego is all it is.
Shadowline, proud to be a member of pa2a.org since Sep 2012.
Reply
#54
Laplace;155429 Wrote:
-JD-;155425 Wrote:IMO, having the illegal ordinances challenged successfully by individuals is better than having it done by the NRA/GOA/FOAC/PA4SP/JFPF or any other organization. They ("antis") all keep screaming "special interest" "special interest" - a "citizen" win denies them an attractive talking point.

All the better that Mr. Artie Splash is a member of a community that is not frequently viewed as being associated with traditional gun culture.

I'm not sure you have been paying attention. Every single firearms lawsuit or legislation ever pursued was done by the NRA. Whether it was Joey Donuts, SAF, ACLU, or the Catholic Church. Hell, the NRA even got those legislators recalled in Colorado with all their big gun industry business money (never mind it was grassroots and Bloomberg outspent them 10 to 1).

Heck, the NRA are the ones that got HB 80 passed.

http://articles.philly.com/2014-10-22/ne...n-firearms

The NRA also caused Ebola:

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/...olumn.html

And the NRA killed 10,000 Indians in Bohpal during the 1980s, plus my cat.

No, there is ZERO chance there will be better press optics if a local guy hires a local law firm. And zero is a very narrow range. Try an error propagation analysis on it.

I guess thats why Tom Corbett signed HB80 sitting next to Kim Stolfer from Firearms Owners Against Crime Dodgy

Laplace;155482 Wrote:The last time Mr. Prince went to an appeals court over this, the court stated that municipalities can post signs and have rules controlling access to their properties. They may not be able to pass criminal statutes, but they can put up "No Guns" signs and prosecute people for trespassing that violate the conditions of entry.

Right now there are very few such signs, and most municipalities remove them when alerted of illegal ordinances. I am concerned that lawsuits are going to change that by bringing attention to the fact that municipalities CAN ban firearms all they want. That would be a change for the worse. At a minimum, I don't think there is case law saying otherwise.

Similarly, it wouldn't surprise me to see "lost and stolen" laws pass a judicial test (lib lawyer in a black robe jerking off). Does anybody have information to the contrary regarding the wording of preemption? I think possession, sale, and transport could be blown off by a judge very simply in this regard. Right now these laws are not generally enforced. Lose, and 1/3 of the Commonwealth will have these laws in a week and they will be enforced.

OH NOES FOOTNOTE 9!!!!!!111111!!!!!!! Dodgy
freesoul, proud to be a member of pa2a.org since Feb 2013.
Reply
#55
We are going to have to wait a bit longer for things to get rolling ...

Thanks to Sebastian over at Shall Not Be Questioned: Details Matter – Legislative Whoopsie

Whoops - The Guv signed the wrong local gun law preemption bill. Now he has to do it again:
Quote:Good Thursday Morning, Fellow Seekers.
So remember that NRA-backed gun bill that allows the NRA and others to sue municipalities that have gun ordinances that are tougher than those in existing state law?

Well, thanks to a clerical mix-up, Gov. Tom Corbett actually signed the wrong version of the bill into law last week, and now it looks like he'll have to do it again.
-JD-, proud to be a member of pa2a.org since Sep 2012.
Reply
#56
-JD-;156317 Wrote:We are going to have to wait a bit longer for things to get rolling ...

Thanks to Sebastian over at Shall Not Be Questioned: Details Matter – Legislative Whoopsie

Whoops - The Guv signed the wrong local gun law preemption bill. Now he has to do it again:
Quote:Good Thursday Morning, Fellow Seekers.
So remember that NRA-backed gun bill that allows the NRA and others to sue municipalities that have gun ordinances that are tougher than those in existing state law?

Well, thanks to a clerical mix-up, Gov. Tom Corbett actually signed the wrong version of the bill into law last week, and now it looks like he'll have to do it again.

He did, yesterday, November 6, 2014.

http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/bill...pe=B&bn=80

Quote:Signed in House, Nov. 5, 2014
Signed in Senate, Nov. 6, 2014
Presented to the Governor, Nov. 6, 2014
Approved by the Governor, Nov. 6, 2014
Reply
#57
It's amazing how many "law makers" and "law and order" types encourage municipalities to break the law, so much so that we needed another law that says follow the law or you'll be penalized, ... well, maybe it's not amazing, just damned hypocritical, or business us usual.
Reply
#58
Well everyone can now hold their horses because Philly and Lancaster are going to sue (announcement Monday) to get it tossed as unconstitutional.

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/local/...n_law.html

http://lancasteronline.com/news/local/la...b2370.html

They are suing based on the 'single subject' provision of the PA constitution regarding the passage of laws.
Reply
#59
dc dalton;156381 Wrote:Well everyone can now hold their horses because Philly and Lancaster are going to sue (announcement Monday) to get it tossed as unconstitutional.

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/local/...n_law.html

http://lancasteronline.com/news/local/la...b2370.html

They are suing based on the 'single subject' provision of the PA constitution regarding the passage of laws.

I like this comment in the Lancaster article:

Quote:Lets see if I got this right. The city of Lancaster is fighting a law that gives citizens standing even though they have not been harmed. Shouldn't the city have to wait until they have been harmed?. Oh the hypocrisy!
Reply
#60
dc dalton;156381 Wrote:Well everyone can now hold their horses because Philly and Lancaster are going to sue (announcement Monday) to get it tossed as unconstitutional.

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/local/...n_law.html

http://lancasteronline.com/news/local/la...b2370.html

They are suing based on the 'single subject' provision of the PA constitution regarding the passage of laws.

Are you suggesting that the law won't take affect when it's supposed to because it's now being challenged? If not, what "horses" should we "hold"?

While those waiting to bring a suit may hold off for reasons of expediency, my understanding is that the law will take affect as/when expected, unless some future court ruling bars it pending the outcome of the challenge.
Reply






Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Senate Committee Passes Sunday Hunting Ban Repeal sgtsandman 0 37 02-08-2019, 05:38 PM
Last Post: sgtsandman
  NRA loses Act 192 lawsuit in PA courts ArcticSplash 3 1,051 06-26-2015, 01:17 PM
Last Post: gascolator
  Tom Corbett only has himself to blame threadkiller 7 1,496 11-14-2014, 04:59 PM
Last Post: Brick
  Philly, Pittsburgh, Lancaster (and others) file suit regarding HB80 soberbyker 8 1,890 11-12-2014, 11:02 PM
Last Post: sgtsandman
  Philadelphia Settles in Class Action Lawsuit (good for us) jahwarrior72 21 2,594 08-02-2014, 10:27 PM
Last Post: Ten*K



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

Software by MyBB, © 2002-2015 MyBB Group.
Template by Modogodo Design.