Potential lawsuits put Reading's gun laws in jeopardy

WFMZ ^

[Red in Blue PA]

A new state law is taking aim at Pennsylvania municipalities that have their own gun laws, and Reading is taking heed.

Council members told 69 News that they intend to soon repeal the ordinance that requires people to report lost or stolen guns within 24 hours.

"At the advice of our solicitor, we will now have on our agenda to introduce, an ordinance to repeal the current firearms ordinance," said Councilwoman Marcia Goodman-Hinnershitz, D-Reading.

[Red in Blue PA]

A lost of laws will need to be scrapped or else be found unlawful thanks to Corbett signing the preemption law.

PA Constitution Right to Bear Arms Section 21. The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

[faithhopecharity]

....’the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed...”

[backwoods-engineer]

Marcia Goodman-Hinnershitz

You just can't make this stuff up.

[FredZarguna]

In light of the PA RKBA article, which existed before the US Second Amendment, these municipalities had no right to enact an ordinance more stringent than that allowed by the Commonwealth to begin with.

That they did so is typical of Leftist tactics: stand on the law and leverage it against your enemies when it furthers your aims, simply ignore it when it doesn't.

Leftist attorneys claiming that the new law is unprecedented in that it gives advocacy groups the right to join suit are ignoring the fact that environmentalist groups have had special standing to sue in EPA cases for forty years.

[Red in Blue PA]

I am looking forward to leftist cities defying this preemption law and going bankrupt because of it.

Harrisburg is one such city which currently stands in defiance of the new law.

http://fox43.com/2014/12/30/gun-owner-groups-threaten-harrisburg-with-lawsuit/

[FredZarguna]

Problem is, Harrisburg has a unique protection that some of these other municipalities don't [yet] have: Harrisburg is already broke.

I notice the article gets a very important point wrong: the cities currently challenging the law are not claiming the law is unconstitutional. Their objection is a purely process objection, to wit, that the law was not enacted in accordance with transparency requirements. What they're trying to do is overturn the law on purely procedural grounds, knowing full well that the incoming Marxist will never sign such a law if it is reenacted by the legislature.