BREAKING: PA Judge Issues Stay Blocking Illegal Pittsburgh Gun Laws

pittsburgh lawsuit gun control

Pittsburgh Mayor William Peduto (AP Photo/Gene J. Puskar)

From the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette:

Pittsburgh’s three gun-control ordinances will not be enforced until after legal proceedings, according to an order issued by an Allegheny County Common Pleas judge Monday.

All parties agreed to the stay during a Monday morning meeting held in Judge Joseph James’ chambers between city lawyers and legal counsel representing the plaintiffs.

Judge James is expected to issue the stay Monday.

If you’ll remember, Pittsburgh Mayor Bill Peduto embarked on a personal gun control jihad following the Tree of Life synagogue shooting. His main goal was challenging Pennsylvania’s preemption law that prevents Pittsburgh and any other city in the state from enacting gun control laws that are more restrictive than those in force at the state level.

Peduto and the Pittsburgh city council flouted the state law and enacted an “assault weapons” ban, magazine capacity limits and red flag confiscation.

Hizzoner’s goal was to get the state’s Supreme Court to invalidate the preemption law by picking a legal fight.

As soon as Peduto signed the local laws, the city and council members were sued. Three times, to be precise.

Now, as the Post-Gazette is reporting, things are proceeding just as Peduto envisioned.

“That’s consistent with the city’s goal all along, which is to put this in front of the court, let the courts decide whether these ordinances are permissible under Pennsylvania law,” said Eric Tirschwell, an attorney with gun-control advocacy organization Everytown Law who is representing the city pro bono. “The city is not looking to prejudice anyone while those decisions are made. That’s why the city entered into the agreement today.”

No, the city isn’t looking to “prejudice” (i.e. prosecute) anyone under the new restrictions, because once that happens, citizens can then swear out a complaint against the mayor and city council members for violating state law. And that might unduly inconvenience the elected officials.

The judge’s order prevents the law from being enforced while the cases wind their way through the courts. Meanwhile, a state representative has begun the process of impeaching Peduto over his flagrant disregard for the law.

We’ll be watching this process play out, and so should you.

comments

  1. avatar Dog of War says:

    Personally I think this does show a need for a new law…. a law that criminalizes the act of a local politician attempting to preempt state law with an ordnance. Preferable with a nice 20 year mandatory minimum sentence.

    1. avatar Cuteandfuzzybunnies says:

      Criminal penalties against politicians are seldom enforced. Better to let any citizen sue them under a state statute personally to pay back the tax money spent on defending , prosecuting and enforcing the laws. . Make them pay and they will back off.

      1. avatar Old law Prof says:

        Create a CIVIL cause of action with these features.
        1. Anyone who may be subject to the ordinance has “standing” to sue. Cases may be consolidated for trial.
        2. Violations occur per individual restriction, per day.
        3. Violations result in these penalties:
        (a) $1000 minimum damages for each violation.
        (b) a civil penalty of $10,000 payable to the plaintiff if any violation has occurred.
        4. A required award of attorney’s fees and costs to plaintiff whose lawsuit results in any relief, including any change in government actions.

    2. avatar Kevin says:

      They should also be tarred and feathered in public before getting on the bus to go to prison.

      1. avatar Dr.miller says:

        Naw, I’d rather see the idiot keel-hauled. For those of you who don’t know what that means check it out just do a Google search for it

    3. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

      Perhaps followed by a good Tar and Feathering upon release.

  2. avatar Mr no says:

    At least someone in PA can think that mayor is an idiot and should be relieved. It’s close to the nonsense we have here in NYS rule by decree you will do what I tell you to and like it another blooming idiot

  3. avatar SurfGW says:

    The Pittsburgh law is not “illegal” – currently it is only in conflict with State preemption law until a court makes the determination. Given the liberal leanings of local courts, it is just as possible that Pittsburgh’s law will me upheld.

    1. avatar Jay in Florida says:

      No more then Philthydephia not recognising State CCWs back a few years ago. Phithydelphia eventually got put in its place.

      1. avatar Mad Max says:

        Philadelphia got put in it’s place by a Republican-controlled Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

        Since few bothered to vote in the last election for Pennsylvania Supreme Court justices, we now have a Democrat-controlled court.

        If you are in Pennsylvania, be sure to vote tomorrow. It matters.

      2. avatar Mountain Man Vinny says:

        J the City of Brotherly Love AKA Philadelphia is a thousand times better than that shit hole you call Florida!

        1. avatar SwampDaddy says:

          Are you a Philly employee?

    2. avatar Dr.miller says:

      You obviously need to do a little more research. A Pittsburgh court cannot overturn a STATE LAW! That can ONLY be done in Harrisburg

  4. avatar enuf says:

    It’s a procedural step, I don’t get excited about those. Doesn’t mean a thing until the case is heard, and the decision and orders from the court are handed down.

    From there an assessment can be made on the potential of an appeal changing the result. That’s true whichever side wins or loses.

  5. avatar Thixotropic says:

    Peduto’s eyes are WAY too close together.

    A dead giveaway.

    1. avatar Chip in Florida says:

      And now I can’t unsee it.

  6. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    What ever will Pittsburgh Mayor William Peduto and his fellow Leftards do now that they are foiled in their goal of infringement,suggestion go pound sand and Eff Off.

  7. avatar former water walker says:

    Haw haw!😄😋😊😏

  8. avatar West of Altoona says:

    It’s the first predictable step to get to the only question that matters: will the heavily Democratic PA Supreme Court overturn its own 1995/1996 ruling in Ortiz v Commonwealth (which upheld the statewide preemption of municipal laws regarding ownership, transfer, possession, or transportation of firearms). Really. This is the only question. The rest of this is window dressing.

    1. avatar Phil Wilson says:

      If rulings on nearly identical cases depend on which party hold the majority of court seats, the law means nothing.

      1. avatar Clark Kent says:

        BINGO! Now you are getting the true picture!

  9. avatar Wiregrass says:

    We’ll soon know if the PA Supreme Court supports the rule of law, specifically Article 1, Section 21.

  10. avatar WI Patriot says:

    Until some other judge comes along and changes that…

  11. avatar LastOfTheOldOnes says:

    In my estimation, 95% of judges are TOTALLY corrupt.
    I found while reading the Constitution and Bill of Rights that both are well written in clear concise language and extremely easy to understand. Either most judges have the verbal capacity of a three year old, or they are liars, deceivers and frauds. In either case, they should be removed.

    Merriam-Webster says this:

    Definition of INFRINGE
    transitive verb

    1 : to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another
    INFRINGE implies an encroachment clearly violating a right or prerogative

    WHY IS THERE EVEN A QUESTION ABOUT THIS?????

    1. avatar Clark Kent says:

      In my estimation, 95% of people who claim others are corrupt usually are attempting to deflect from their own corruption. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

      1. avatar zerofoo says:

        “I’m rubber and you’re glue. Whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks to you.”

        Seriously – are you a 5 year old?

  12. avatar Mad says:

    When it blows these idiot politicians are going to find out lead poisoning is lethal

  13. avatar LastOfTheOldOnes says:

    “In my estimation, 95% of people who claim others are corrupt usually are attempting to deflect from their own corruption. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.”

    Sorry to have to disappoint you. I don’t own a pipe…

  14. avatar joefoam says:

    Glad to see some sanity for a change. These politicians knew this was coming but went ahead anyway knowing that they will not have to pay any legal fees to defend their position. There should be some penalty for legislators enacting new laws that conflict with existing statues. Maybe they would think twice about wasting taxpayer dollars pandering for votes and free publicity.

    1. avatar Punxsy Phil says:

      The penalty is called “voted out”.

      1. avatar zerofoo says:

        Not good enough.

        Willfully violating the protected rights of others under color of law needs to be punishable by decades of jail time to discourage the practice from occurring again.

  15. avatar GS650G says:

    This is the wedge they are looking for. They will allow the cities to make their own rules and eventually go statewide.

  16. avatar Paulo says:

    Most judges aren’t capable of judging a wet t shirt contest

  17. avatar Full Otto says:

    Isn’t this an example of why 2A was written?

  18. avatar JEFF says:

    throw him out of office – he is no good for Pittsburgh or any city

  19. avatar Tony says:

    The lion had his teeth and claws taken away, how will he survive against the Jackals and Hyenas, just thinking.

  20. avatar Docduracoat says:

    Here in Florida we have a law that if any official tries to enforce any law stricter than state preemption, they will be personally liable for fines and removal from office.
    So we have that over Pennsylvania

    1. avatar Docduracoat says:

      The same law prohibits public funds being used to defend the official, provides for legal fees to be awarded to anyone who sues the official, allows the Governor to remove the official, and personal fines of $5,000 to be paid by the official.
      So any mayor in Florida will think twice before passing any strict gun control law here in Florida.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email