Is it Unlawful to Donate to a City’s Defense Fund for Illegal Gun Ordinances?


[UPDATE: Link fixed] Pro-gun attorney Josh Prince makes a good case for it. The criminal penalty for violating preemption is not part of the new Act 192, but was an original feature of the 1974 preemption law. The problem, however, is that it would require the county district attorney to bring charges, which they’ve never been willing to do. In this case, I doubt they would. Anyone charged would likely have a decent First Amendment claim that their donation was a form of protected speech. So from the beginning there was never any enforcement mechanism for preemption, so many towns and cities through Pennsylvania just ignored it, and passed their own gun control laws anyway. While rarely enforced, if you were one of the unlucky few, it was on you to hire an attorney at your own expense, to defend against the charge and challenge ordinance in court. While this almost always resulted in victory under Pennsylvania’s preemption statute, you were out the money for court costs and attorneys fees. The legislature set out to fix this with Act 192, and at least Lancaster, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and Harrisburg don’t appreciate being held to account for their own illegal behavior.

Sorry fellas, you’ve been flouting the law for 40 years now. Time to pay up.

5 thoughts on “Is it Unlawful to Donate to a City’s Defense Fund for Illegal Gun Ordinances?”

    1. That happens when I rush and copy the link from my RSS reader rather than the article itself. Thanks for letting me know.

  1. Charge them and let them spend the money to defend themselves. They would do it to us!

  2. Make them pay for it, and then seek re-reimbursement from city council members who defend the measure. We the taxpayer should not have to pay for their breaking of the law in office.

Comments are closed.