Philadelphia Bucking Preemption Yet Again

This time they are going to refuse to recognize Florida licenses for residents unless the person also holds a Pennsylvania license.

The NRA has in the past sued over the city’s ability to pass its own gun legislation.  Clarke joked about that likelihood, telling Gillison, “Look forward to being with you in court again.”

At this point they know it’s illegal, they are just doing it to be pricks. Hopefully we can get real teeth to preemption so we can penalize the city for doing crap like this. I’d settle for an unambiguous preemption statute, with state funding cut for cities who have gun laws on the books. I don’t even care if they aren’t enforced, time to remove them. This crap has to stop, and stop now.

17 Responses to “Philadelphia Bucking Preemption Yet Again”

  1. Pete says:

    Just get a Utah permit. Then it will be the Utah loophole!

  2. Fiftycal says:

    Don’t you know any shyster lawyers? This would qualify as a CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATION under, I think, US 1981. Especially if someone gets arrested. BIG PAYDAY unless the city goes titsup first.

  3. Sebastian says:

    It would be, but someone has to get arrested. It would be nice if the politicians that pass this stuff could be punished as well.

  4. pete says:

    You guys should push for the same bill that Robb Allen is pushing for. Civil fines for violation preemption laws. Doubt it will happen in Pa. but who knows what the next 2 years will bring.

  5. Thirdpower says:

    Next they’ll try to not recognize non-resident permits issued from PA or have they done that already?

  6. Link P says:

    Civil fines is a good start, but how about criminal penalties for the politicians pushing this stuff?

  7. Sebastian says:

    Hard to say, Link. Do you only hold the yes votes accountable? That kind of crime is unprecedented in our system. Not that I wouldn’t like to see it, but I’m not holding my breath.

  8. FatWhiteMan says:

    That reminds me, I need to order my non-res license from Centre County while I still can.

  9. Jacob says:

    Find out if this guy Darrell Clarke is going to be in a primary next year and see if there is an opportunity to cause problems for him or anyone else who signs onto the bill.

  10. mobo says:

    Darrell Clarke is a hero among the trashy ghetto people here in Philly. This won’t hurt him one bit.

    My guess is that Philadelphia won’t enforce this at all. They will just leave it on the books so they can declare victory again. Someone will have to get themselves arrested intentionally in order to create a challenge.

    I think the best way to fight this is to attack funding for Philadelphia until they see the error or their ways. The timing for this is right for the next two years.

  11. Ian Argent says:

    Philly PD seems to like harassing people they lift the PA permits from. Finding a test case shouldn’t be too hard.

  12. Jacob says:

    It doesn’t matter if he’s a ghetto hero. If he gets in a primary he’s vulnerable. Guns don’t need to be an issue either.

  13. Mobo says:

    Let’s hope Corbett is willing to use his veto power to hurt Philly financially until they repeal this nonsense.

  14. Alpheus says:

    “It would be, but someone has to get arrested. It would be nice if the politicians that pass this stuff could be punished as well.”

    It has always bothered me that, to challenge the Constitutionality of a law, it was necessary to break it first, and the individual who breaks the law is then potentially liable for any punishments that the law entails.

    Why isn’t there a way to challenge laws without breaking them? If I want to participate in an activity, and a law prohibits me from doing so, that alone should be enough to make me a valid challenger to a law!

  15. Kharn says:

    You don’t have to break it, look at any of Gura’s lawsuits. You claim that you fear reprocussions from the law and thus it affects your actions while you would do something completely different if the unconstitutional law were not on the books.

  16. Sebastian says:

    Depends on the law. Standing is tricky. For instance, someone will have to break one of these Lost and Stolen ordinances before they can sue.

  17. Ian Argent says:

    Standing is a way for courts to punt. Particularly for the anti-reemption laws, a citizen ought to be able to sue the municipality that their law is illegal directly.