Lawsuits Going Forward

Apparently City Council is once again headed to court to try to prove the Pennsylvania Constitutional actually says:

The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall be questioned by Philadelphia City Council.

Rather than what it actually says.  One thing from the article:

The NRA is challenging all five ordinances, although attorneys focused on the proposed assault-weapons ban in court Tuesday.

“Most of my clients have machine guns,” Shields said. “They are absolutely lawful.”

Police already have the authority to seize weapons if they are being used unlawfully, he said.

Way to go doing Josh Sugarmann’s legwork in helping confuse the public that the assault weapons issue has anything to do with machine guns.  Your clients may have them, and they may be legal, but that’s not what’s at issue here.

5 thoughts on “Lawsuits Going Forward”

  1. In criticizing Mr. Shields of the NRA, you’re assuming that the reporter is being intellectually honest about what was actually said…and the context within which it was said. There’s no way to guarantee that a reporter from the Inquirer/Daily News is actually going to accurately report.

  2. It could have been taken out of context, but he should have known to be careful to avoid mixing terms like that. If the city had banned Title II firearms, that would be one thing, but they didn’t.

  3. It may well be that Mr. Shields is so convinced of a “slam-dunk” repudiation of the city’s appeal, that he either got sloppy…or…could not control the urge to bait the gunhaters. Having re-read the article, I agree with you…he should have known better than to leave any kind of opening for a reporter to misrepresent him.

  4. The City Council of Reading is trying to pass some anti-gun ordinances as well, at the urging of the Mayor of course.

    I have written a few letters to the newspaper, but they seem to be anti-gun as well.

    Guess I just have to show up to the meeting.

Comments are closed.