(Pittsburgh City) Council Mulls Assault Weapons Ban For G-20

Source: KDKA TV

As the G-20 Summit nears, Pittsburgh City Council is considering the possibility of instituting an assault weapons ban during the high-profile event.

According to our news partners at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, city officials are talking about reviving an old law that would ban those types of weapons.

If approved, the ban would likely be in effect until after the G-20 Summit ends.

City council members are expected to consider the assault weapons ban today along with many other pieces of legislation during a special session on the G-20 Summit.

Read more: http://kdka.com/local/g20/G20.Summit.Pittsburgh.2.1149195.html

---

Brought on I would think by the appearance of Chris Broughton & his AR-15 in Phoenix outside Obama's VFW appearance. And by the open talk of PA open carry advocates of open carrying in the city during the G-20. Could be a brouhaha since it could be argued that this law cannot supersede state law. PA is an open carry state.

but fuck the rest of us.

Just for the record here, I am probably one of the most rabid pro-gun people around here, and I wish these guys would stop going out of their way to get people worked up. It is legal and should stay legal. A good idea? Sort of like sleeping with my girlfriends sister. Not a good idea, even if it is technically legal.

That will be their justification for breaking out the riot gas. Just some more protester hypocrisy as usual!

.......is in town, and reinstate it when the "furners" are outa Dodge. The rest of the "civilized" world must think whata bunch of hicks the Americans are. This is truly a fucking joke.

1) State pre-emption. Only the state can do it.

2) A ban on sales of new "assault weapons" (whatever they decided the definition du jour is) wouldn't do anything for the ones already owned by the citizens of Pittsburgh. Unless they planned to go door-to-door and confiscate them... which I'm SURE won't have any legal or social implications. :eyes:

during the G-20. Not saying there aren't those in the city government who wouldn't like to supersede state law, i.e. right now trying to defeat state on a reporting of stolen guns law. There is probably also strong sentiment because of the April murder of 3 police officers.

A little-noted clause in a proposed ordinance written by Mayor Luke Ravenstahl's administration to keep protesters from thwarting police crowd control efforts invokes the defunct assault weapons ban. The clause says "no person shall possess" an array of items including 37 "contraband" weapons listed in the ban, "for the purpose of defeating lawful removal" by police.

Its effect is a matter of debate.

To Councilman Bruce Kraus, a gun control advocate, it's "clearly saying that this ban on assault weapons would be an effective tool for policing the G-20."

"If indeed, by sending this over, (administration officials) feel that the assault weapons ban is needed for effective policing during the G-20, would they not also feel that the ban is needed for daily policing?"

City Solicitor George Specter said the clause is "not an attempt to ban such things," but rather "a restriction on how they are used, in clearly defined, limited circumstances."



Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09240/993804-482.stm#ixzz0PUZwUsV3

Can't they have a security perimeter around the buildings?


I'd rather see the Penn. Legislature pass a law prohibiting open carry at a USSS-designated National Security Event or something like that. That would seem to be a better solution to this perceived problem.



This seems to be a big hue and cry over what's going to be a handful of people wanting to make a statement. It's exactly what they want: an excuse to reinforce the "Obama's gonna take away our guns!" meme. And then when some disturbed individual ambushes another cop or two, and they find that this law was some kind of precipitating event?


The open-carry idiots are just doing this because it makes liberals (who, remember, are communo-marxist-leninist-fascist-nazi-esque babykilling antiwar pacifist blame-America-first gunhating homosexuals) go completely batshit insane.



I'm personally waiting for some open-carrier to have his gun stolen away from him. I bet that would make an embarrasing police report!

For someone to come up from behind and pull the exposed trigger.

and check every inch and every possible hiding place. Any type of rifle with a barrel over 16" is legally a "long gun". They are NOT subject to any record keeping, and legally may be sold privately with no record at all. PA has no idea who owns what when it comes to rifles and shotgun.

I assume there will be some sort of "feel good" meaningless law for the sake of publicity and credit for the legislators, much like the ridiculous
Federal AWB of a few years ago. Got votes, did nothing else.

mark

"They're not letting us bring our guns!" 1 is stopped, while 10 become sympathetic to their cause.

Gun rights organizations today came out against a proposed city of Pittsburgh ordinance, driven by the G-20 Summit, that would bar anyone from carrying numerous items, including 37 types of firearms, if they appear to be trying to disrupt police crowd dispersal.

"They may try to call this some other thing, but by every reasonable account, and reasonable review of what they intend to do, this is a gun ban, plain and simple," said Andrew Arulanandam, director of public affairs for the National Rifle Association. "And the fact that they want to leave it open-ended, I think, is the most ominous point."

He said passage of the ordinance could force the NRA to reconsider bringing its annual meeting, which can draw tens of thousands of members, to Pittsburgh in 2011.

-----

Mike Stollenwerk, co-founder of OpenCarry.org, which promotes the right to openly bear arms, said the inclusion of a gun list in the legislation is "nonsensical." Some are Korean War-era weapons, he said, and if police tell you to move along, it doesn't matter what you're carrying.


-----

He said he believes the city is trying to "bait" people into bringing rifles to G-20 protests, but that his group has no plans to encourage people to bring any weapons near the David L. Lawrence Convention Center during the summit.

Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09240/993917-100.stm#ixzz0PVaWexN2

Fraternal Order of Police President Dan O'Hara said that he generally didn't oppose peoples' right to own powerful guns.

"It's not the fact that people own assault weapons that's a problem," he said. "The problem is how they're being used, and who owns them."

He said police have gotten reports that representatives from the group Open Carry -- which backs the right of most citizens to openly bear arms -- would be near the G-20 perimeter.

Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09240/993804-482.stm#ixzz0PVapXvPe

If the legislature (not the city council) wants to extend the secured radius to insure it's free of firearms, that's the legislature's prerogative. State pre-emption would make this proposed law meaningless.

isn't time to take it to state court. That's what I envision happening. And it may be a toe in the water for the city. Already they've beaten back the NRA on a law they passed that supersedes state law on stolen gun reporting in county court. So far that hasn't gotten to any state courts.

They can have their cops enforce any extra-legal law for a short period of time.

I'd imagine they'll pay for it in the end, though, assuming someone gets arrested and has standing to sue.