Some Interesting PA Case Law

Things are kind of slow right now, so I thought I’d drag an old bit of Pennsylvania case law out in Oritz vs. Commonwealth. The money quote:

Because the ownership of firearms is constitutionally protected, its regulation is a matter of statewide concern. The constitution does not provide that the right to bear arms shall not be questioned in any part of the commonwealth, except Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, where it may be abridged at will, but that it shall not be questioned in any part of the commonwealth. Thus, regulation of firearms is a matter of concern in all of Pennsylvania, not merely in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, and the General Assembly, not city councils, is the proper forum for the imposition of such regulation.

For the foregoing reasons, the order of Commonwealth Court is affirmed.

And with that, the courts threw Philadelphia and Pittsburgh’s assault weapons bans off the books, and upheld statewide preemption.

2 thoughts on “Some Interesting PA Case Law”

  1. Which though better than nothing is still incorrect. It is not a matter for the General Assembly. They too are prohibited from legislating restrictions and/or conditions on the right to keep and bear arms. 2A , 9A,10A, and 14A make it very plain that no body, not even the federals can legally do so.

    Let’s not fool ourselves that we are law abiding when we observe these laws. We are not, we are merely surrendering to the hired guhnmen who are at the service of the state. Absolutely no difference between that obeying the commands of any other violent criminal who would rob you.

    If we don’t have the guts to stop them, let’s ,at least, have the guts to admit our cowardice.

Comments are closed.