einstein said that insanity is repeating an experiment...

[justashooter 430]

The Pennsylvania Legislature authored and adopted a Uniform Firearms Act in 1995 to eliminate conflict in firearms laws across the state. Since then all pre-existing ordinances authored at lower levels have been null and void.

They are overridden by Section 6100 of the state code, and municipalities have been forbidden by law to enact local ordinance related to firearms possession or purchase. In fact, it is a misdemeanor offense for local govt to enact such ordinances. The UFA was upheld by the State Supreme Court in 1996.

In recent months Filthadelphia and Reading have defied UFA and wasted hundreds of thousands of tax dollars adopting ordinances and defending them in court. Why the officials who adopted these ordinances against the advice of their solicitors have not been indicted is an interesting question.

By DAVE DAVIES

Philadelphia Daily News

daviesd@phillynews.com 215-854-2595

Commonwealth Court has upheld a decision striking down two Philadelphia gun laws, setting up a likely showdown in the state Supreme Court over the city's ability to regulate firearms.

At issue were a law banning assault weapons and another limiting handgun purchases to one per month, both passed in 2008.

The ruling upheld a Common Pleas Court ruling that struck down the laws on the grounds that they were pre-empted by state law.

City attorneys will likely appeal to the state Supreme Court, which ruled in 1996 that the state and not the city has the exclusive right to regulate firearms.

City attorney Richard Feder said that some of the reasoning in the Commonwealth Court opinion was encouraging and "will make for a very strong argument [for the city] if this case gets to the Supreme Court."

National Rifle Association attorney Scott Shields said that the high court's 1996 ruling clearly said that the city couldn't make its own gun laws, but "the city is hoping that a different composition of the court will come up with a different result. That's the wrong way for law to be made."

Some confusion exists about the status of three other city gun laws enacted last year. Yesterday's decision upheld a Common Pleas court ruling that the NRA lacked the standing to challenge them, so city officials regard them as valid.

But in a separate case brought by two City Council members, Commonwealth Court concluded that the city lacked the authority to pass all five laws.

Feder said yesterday that the city wasn't a party to that suit and wasn't bound by the decision.

Shields said that if the city were to charge anyone with violations of those laws, litigation would follow. They require owners to report promptly the theft or loss of a gun, to bar persons bound by protection-from-abuse orders from getting guns and to allow the city to take guns away from someone regarded as an imminent threat to himself or others.

It's likely that the fate of all five ordinances will be decided together by the state Supreme Court. *

Staff writers Chris Brennan and Catherine Lucey contributed to this story.

[Ban Hammer 13,349]

they won't be happy until no one has guns.

[natty bumppo 297]

gotta keep the city lawyers off unemployment during these difficult times.

just think of the other needed services the cities could have provided with the wasted $$$$$$$$.

[Amby 490]

kinda like you posting threads like this over and over

[justashooter 430]

kinda like you posting threads like this over and over

it's news, baby. the decision was rendered yesterday.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

they won't be happy until no one law abiding citizen has guns.

fixcized

[dalegg 143]

they won't be happy until no one law abiding citizen has guns.

fixcized

I was going to say, it might not be so bad if No one had guns. Since that's a practical impossibility though..