Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: PA OKs Measure Allowing NRA to Sue Towns Over Gun Laws [View all]happyslug
(14,779 posts)14. This law is one paragraph in a law otherwise directed at metal thieves..
Wording of the Paragraph in question:
§ 6120. LIMITATION ON THE REGULATION OF FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION.
....
(A.2) RELIEF.--A PERSON ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY AN ORDINANCE, A RESOLUTION, REGULATION, RULE, PRACTICE OR ANY OTHER ACTION PROMULGATED OR ENFORCED BY A COUNTY, MUNICIPALITY OR TOWNSHIP PROHIBITED UNDER SUBSECTION (A) OR 53 PA.C.S. § 2962(G) (RELATING TO LIMITATION ON MUNICIPAL POWERS) MAY SEEK DECLARATORY OR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND ACTUAL DAMAGES IN AN APPROPRIATE COURT.
(A.3) REASONABLE EXPENSES.--A COURT SHALL AWARD REASONABLE EXPENSES TO A PERSON ADVERSELY AFFECTED IN AN ACTION UNDER SUBSECTION (A.2) FOR ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
(1) A FINAL DETERMINATION BY THE COURT IS GRANTED IN FAVOR OF THE PERSON ADVERSELY AFFECTED.
(2) THE REGULATION IN QUESTION IS RESCINDED, REPEALED OR OTHERWISE ABROGATED AFTER SUIT HAS BEEN FILED UNDER SUBSECTION (A.2) BUT BEFORE THE FINAL DETERMINATION BY THE
COURT.
http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/PN/Public/btCheck.cfm?txtType=PDF&sessYr=2013&sessInd=0&billBody=H&billTyp=B&billNbr=0080&pn=4318
....
(A.2) RELIEF.--A PERSON ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY AN ORDINANCE, A RESOLUTION, REGULATION, RULE, PRACTICE OR ANY OTHER ACTION PROMULGATED OR ENFORCED BY A COUNTY, MUNICIPALITY OR TOWNSHIP PROHIBITED UNDER SUBSECTION (A) OR 53 PA.C.S. § 2962(G) (RELATING TO LIMITATION ON MUNICIPAL POWERS) MAY SEEK DECLARATORY OR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND ACTUAL DAMAGES IN AN APPROPRIATE COURT.
(A.3) REASONABLE EXPENSES.--A COURT SHALL AWARD REASONABLE EXPENSES TO A PERSON ADVERSELY AFFECTED IN AN ACTION UNDER SUBSECTION (A.2) FOR ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
(1) A FINAL DETERMINATION BY THE COURT IS GRANTED IN FAVOR OF THE PERSON ADVERSELY AFFECTED.
(2) THE REGULATION IN QUESTION IS RESCINDED, REPEALED OR OTHERWISE ABROGATED AFTER SUIT HAS BEEN FILED UNDER SUBSECTION (A.2) BUT BEFORE THE FINAL DETERMINATION BY THE
COURT.
http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/PN/Public/btCheck.cfm?txtType=PDF&sessYr=2013&sessInd=0&billBody=H&billTyp=B&billNbr=0080&pn=4318
Later on the Law then defines who is someone "Adversely Affected:
"PERSON ADVERSELY AFFECTED." ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
(1) A RESIDENT OF THIS COMMONWEALTH WHO MAY LEGALLY POSSESS A FIREARM UNDER FEDERAL AND STATE LAW.
(2) A PERSON WHO OTHERWISE HAS STANDING UNDER THE LAWS OF THIS COMMONWEALTH TO BRING AN ACTION UNDER SUBSECTION (A.2).
(3) A MEMBERSHIP ORGANIZATION, IN WHICH A MEMBER IS A PERSON DESCRIBED UNDER PARAGRAPH (1) OR (2).
(1) A RESIDENT OF THIS COMMONWEALTH WHO MAY LEGALLY POSSESS A FIREARM UNDER FEDERAL AND STATE LAW.
(2) A PERSON WHO OTHERWISE HAS STANDING UNDER THE LAWS OF THIS COMMONWEALTH TO BRING AN ACTION UNDER SUBSECTION (A.2).
(3) A MEMBERSHIP ORGANIZATION, IN WHICH A MEMBER IS A PERSON DESCRIBED UNDER PARAGRAPH (1) OR (2).
This is the deadly part of the law, all the NRA needs is anyone in the STATE who may legally possess a firearm, not a resident of the municipality or county in question.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
53 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
So you think it's a good idea to have every county/city/town within a state to make it's own
GGJohn
Oct 2014
#24
It's an attempt to get uniform laws across the state and not make more criminals
GGJohn
Oct 2014
#27
The new PA law changes absolutely nothing about current gun restrictions or safety.
branford
Oct 2014
#26
Odd. They would have to sue in state court because a plaintiff who has been harmed is a requirement
merrily
Oct 2014
#3
"without having to find actual plaintiffs who can demonstrate that they've been harmed by the law"
Volaris
Oct 2014
#9
PA is going crazy with right-wing legislation at the moment. They must be trying to
enough
Oct 2014
#11
PA is controlled by teabaggers. Governor, State House, State Senate, 13/18 US House Reps, and
AlinPA
Oct 2014
#12
If Democrats in PA turn out to vote. This state has turned stupid, electing so many teabaggers.
AlinPA
Oct 2014
#44
Democracy doe's not exist on the federal and state level , how dare local communities
geretogo
Oct 2014
#28
Are you really advocating that localities should be able to violate state law,
branford
Oct 2014
#29
I am willing to live by Majority rule with in the boundaries of the Constitution not by minority rule
geretogo
Oct 2014
#30
Do you have any evidence that the majority of PA citizens do not support the law?
branford
Oct 2014
#33
That's not the constitutional interpretation established by the Supreme Court,
branford
Oct 2014
#38