The lawsuit against the standing law is Shakepeare's "tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."
To begin with, political subdivisions--counties, cities, boroughs, townships--cannot have their own gun laws. They try to do so, from time to time, to mask their own failure to carry out the principal duty of government, which is to maintain law and order.
They pass trivial, nugatory ordinances, such as the one discussed above, as a kind of theater. These are not really enforced, only threatened. They are not challenged in the courts, because it is not practical to do so. Who is going to litigate what is for all effects like a big traffic ticket, only without the points on one's license?
When NGO's try to do so on behalf of their members, those cases are dismissed for a legal technicality, "standing" meaning that the NGO's are not proper parties to the suit.
So it was that the people of the Commonwealth, through the legislature, passed a statute to clarify that the NGO's had standing to challenge the invalid ordinances.
So what do the rogue municipalities do? But of course: to preserve their one legal technicality, standing, they put forth another, the single purpose rule.
Ho-hum. As your mayor recognizes, if and when Pittsburgh ever tries to enforce its faux ordinance, the case is getting thrown out on appeal. All the NRA or the state affiliate have to do is to wait for the right case and finance the litigation costs for the real party in interest.
Like so much of the squabbling in the gun culture war, this has been meaningless posturing.
Recent Comments
See how that works? New stories about crime with guns get us thinking that we had better take steps to defend ourselves.
To begin with, political subdivisions--counties, cities, boroughs, townships--cannot have their own gun laws. They try to do so, from time to time, to mask their own failure to carry out the principal duty of government, which is to maintain law and order.
They pass trivial, nugatory ordinances, such as the one discussed above, as a kind of theater. These are not really enforced, only threatened. They are not challenged in the courts, because it is not practical to do so. Who is going to litigate what is for all effects like a big traffic ticket, only without the points on one's license?
When NGO's try to do so on behalf of their members, those cases are dismissed for a legal technicality, "standing" meaning that the NGO's are not proper parties to the suit.
So it was that the people of the Commonwealth, through the legislature, passed a statute to clarify that the NGO's had standing to challenge the invalid ordinances.
So what do the rogue municipalities do? But of course: to preserve their one legal technicality, standing, they put forth another, the single purpose rule.
Ho-hum. As your mayor recognizes, if and when Pittsburgh ever tries to enforce its faux ordinance, the case is getting thrown out on appeal. All the NRA or the state affiliate have to do is to wait for the right case and finance the litigation costs for the real party in interest.
Like so much of the squabbling in the gun culture war, this has been meaningless posturing.