Mission statement:

Armed and Safe is a gun rights advocacy blog, with the mission of debunking the "logic" of the enemies of the Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms.

I can be reached at 45superman@gmail.com.You can follow me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/45superman.

Friday, May 04, 2007

Philadelphia passes laws . . . illegally (now that should foster an attitude of respect for the rule of law)

First, Philadelphia throws a little temper tantrum, and threatens to sue the state of Pennsylvania over unhappiness with state gun laws (I'll have to watch how that works--there are plenty of gun owners in Illinois who would have grounds for a lawsuit against this state). As silly as that idea is, it apparently isn't quite quixotic enough for the Philly city council, because now they have decided to openly violate the law.

Despite the undisputed fact that Philadelphia has no authority to regulate firearms, they passed eight laws intended to do just that yesterday. Let me see if I'm following this correctly. They intend to arrest and punish people who break these laws--laws that are themselves a violation of higher law--and yet I'm willing to wager that they will demand that people respect the rule of law (as long as it's the rule of their law). Now that is hypocrisy.

Just what happens next - with this legally questionable legislation - isn't clear.
"Legally questionable" is one way of putting it, I suppose, although I can't really imagine what the question would be--what they're doing is illegal. The members of the city council (all of whom voted to commit this crime) are criminals.
Before the Council meeting, Councilman James F. Kenney asked: "What would they do, arrest us?"
Actually, James, that's exactly what I propose they do.

By the way, I could find information about only three of the eight laws. The perennial favorite of the civilian disarmament advocates, a one gun a month gun rationing law, was one. A second would turn crime victims into criminals, if they failed to report the theft within 24 hours (are they to be required to check their gun safes every day now?). The third law is one I haven't heard of before--it would require ammunition sales to be reported to the police. That's the ticket in a city overwhelmed with crime--tie up police resources in the collection of useless information. That's without even getting into the privacy issues.

As for the lawsuit, I wouldn't wager a lot of money on its chances of success:
The lawsuit has been on hold for a different reason: [City Councilman Darrel] Clarke couldn't find a lawyer willing to take the case.

Council has one now, Clarke said, but he declined to identify the lawyer. Clarke also declined to say whether the new laws would be enforced immediately, explaining that he did not want to compromise the legal strategy.
So now that they have found an attorney either dumb enough or unscrupulous enough (or both) to take this junk lawsuit case, Philadelphia tax payers will line that lawyer's pockets, while Pennsylvania tax payers (including those who live in Philadelphia) pay the lawyers representing the state. Now that's a brilliant allocation of resources.

It seems that what Philadelphia really wants is to secede from the state of Pennsylvania. I think the state would be well advised to let them do just that. Actually, Philly (and Chicago, too) can secede from the entire country, as far as I'm concerned.

5 comments:

dwlawson said...

I'm excited about this lawsuit...Seems like bad legislation could be construed as Malpractice.

straightarrow said...

I sincerely hope that the state AG has the balls to prosecute these men as criminals when the first arrest under the illegal laws are made.

Or even better a federal prosecutor trying them for this. And as these laws are illegal from the start, any arrest or detention under them is kidnaping. Ergo the death penalty could be applied to all of the participants, city council, cops, prosecutors, all of them that aid in this atrocity against the constitution and the rights of their citizens. see below the star line.
**********************************

DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW
Summary:
Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.
For the purpose of Section 242, acts under “color of law” include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of that official’s lawful authority, if the acts are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include police officers, prisons guards and other law enforcement officials, as well as judges, care providers in public health facilities, and others who are acting as public officials. It is not necessary that the crime be motivated by animus toward the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin of the victim.
The offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a life term, or the death penalty, depending upon the circumstances of the crime, and the resulting injury, if any.
TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, … shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

opaww said...

I have said on other boards, that we should wall of commiefornia not Mexico, move all the anti gunners and left wing commies there and stop funding of any kind for them and let them be there own country.

I would give them 2 years before they are either wiped out or come crawling back

opaww said...

Until the People take a stand and demand action against the commies that would take our right away. Then nothing will come of it except people bitching and gripping. Sorry but it is a fact.

Grish said...

Don't wall off Kalifornia; it's not that bad. Kalifornians are actually allowed to own guns, and can get CCW permits in the more rural counties.

Walling off L.A. isn't a bad idea, though. That city is a cesspool.

If you want to wall off anti-gun states, start with New Jersey. There's no state more anti-gun than NJ. NJ should be separated from the rest of the country, and have its own government, so they can be as anti-gun as they wish. Anti-gun people should be encouraged to move there. They have lots of wonderful, scenic places in that state to live, such as Newark and Trenton.

Next on the list would be Illinois and Wisconsin.

To help them out with any labor problems, the rest of the US can run a free shuttle service from the Mexican border up to New Jersey, for any Mexicans that want to go there. Since the anti-gun people are usually for open borders, we can help them in this pursuit.