Friday, April 11, 2008

Anti-Gun Nutter Breaks Law

Nutter defies '96 ruling by signing new gun laws

So if we have equal protection under the law, can I defy laws I don't like, too?

Or is that a privilege reserved for the elites?

I like how this traitor cites the Declaration of Independence as justification for his unAmericanism.

This article says enforcement of the law against normal capacity semiautos will begin immediately.

I'm envisioning a 100+ car caravan in the City Hall parking lot and then each driver calling the police to advise them they have a noncompliant firearm in the trunk--right after calling the local media. Everything would be conducted peacefully, and no resistance offered. The time to fight would be afterward, in court.

Think they'd dare make 100 confiscations and arrests?

15 comments:

Anonymous said...

'Think they'd dare make 100 confiscations and arrests?'

They would; and whether or not the 'law' is thrown out later, those arrested would neither get their property back nor have the record of arrest expunged. (the conviction might be reversed, but the arrest record remains, and would probably bar the citizen from ever again acquiring personal arms)

Friends have discussed massive public protests like this. In '89 (maybe '90) about 8k gun owners and friends visited the NJ legislature with the intent of preventing the lege from passing flim flam florio's ugly gun ban. The lege flipped the single digit salute and passed it. Had those citizens come back with their then banned tools, they'd have been encircled, arrested, and convicted.

Nutter is a posturing pecksniff, in the mold of Marion Barry, and is untouchable. Demographics have made Philly, a city large in our history, little more than trash heap of thieves, killers and the politicos who lead them.

Good luck PA...

Anonymous said...

"I'm envisioning a 100+ car caravan in the City Hall parking lot and then each driver calling the police to advise them they have a noncompliant firearm in the trunk--right after calling the local media. Everything would be conducted peacefully, and no resistance offered. The time to fight would be afterward, in court."

Um, No.

I haven't any problem with 100 gun owners getting together and letting the police know where they are, so long as all the magazines are filled and there are rounds in the chambers and the safeties are off.
This is a bit odd, as I'm usually the one who suggests a less confontative path, but there cannot be any surrender of rights or of property. The very act of surrendering any weapon to any government entity is an agreement with an interpretation of the 2A that isn't in the text.
Shucking and jiving with the Undecideds over gun legislation is one thing, but when there are armed men trying to take away guns, it's time to start shooting.

David Codrea said...

Interesting take, Peter.

Any chance of that happening? And not having a provocateur in the ranks who will guarantee shooting does start?

I wouldn't suggest my approach if I didn't think that ultimately it would win the day--the arrest would be declared illegal, the property would be returned, and the offenders would be liable for providing civil damages.

And precedent would be established loud and clear.

But by making it starkly all or nothing with a likelihood to escalate, your way simply will not happen--who would join such a plan?

Peter, I know it's a cliche, but it is not about guns, it's about freedom. Rosa Parks temporarily allowed her freedom to be infringed so that she could win the greater battle. She did not board the bus with dozens of armed men who were locked and loaded, but still managed to change the nation forever.

If you ever do decide to engage in an act of resistance, I recommend a stealthier approach than the one you offer. Much stealthier, to where no one would ever know you had any part in it.

Because unless I miss my guess, you're going to have a hard time rounding up those other 99 gun owners.

Anonymous said...

The real question is where are the State Police? This man has already broken the law and admitted to a conspiracy to involve others in an ongoing criminal enterprise.

He should already be in manacles to be followed by every LE officer who participates in this crime.

The pragmatists are always talking about negotiation and discourse, Ok, prags, where is the bus loading for Harrisburg?

Anonymous said...

That I could enroll another 99 gun owners is indeed Pie in the Sky, and your point is very well taken.

I'm not concerned about a provocateur in the crowd, as that someone is probably me, as soon as I saw someone being taken into custody. I'll admit that I have a bit of a hard-@ss take on this, that the instant a duly sworn LEO crosses the line, he/she becomes a criminal with pretty clothing.

And after the arrest but before it gets tossed out, there will be records created noting a firearms violation. How do those get completely and irrevocably expunged? By way of the BATFE, whose expungment structure hasn't been funded for the last several years?
I agree it's about freedom. Your idea is to surrender part of it in order to regain it later, I would advocate making it too dangerous for the infringement to even occur.
And since neither of us (thankfully) lives in Philly, this can remain a theoretical discussion. Thanks again for a thought-provoking post!

Sebastian said...

The pragmatists already went to Harrisburg ahead of all this crap. Word is they aren't really enforcing it, despite the media bluster, meaning the city likely already has a fall guy lined up.

Their goal in all this is to make another challenge to preemption, which they have tried before and failed. If they do try to enforce this generally, they'll be open to federal civil rights suits. Talking to some lawyer types this morning, it would seem you can reach up the chain of command as well, so Mayor Nutjob is not out of reach should he decide to bring the issue to a head.

David Codrea said...

As I read it, at least the "AW" ban, you have 30 days from date of enacting to:
1. get it out of philly
2. modify it so it's not out of spec
3. surrender it to the "Only Ones."

So right now, they can't enforce that part of things.

Anonymous said...

No, unman, where are the prags going to Harrisburg to demand Nutter's arrest? Well?

Fuck the lawsuit, put his ass in jail. He is a criminal publicly recruiting co-conspirators.

Or is demanding the law be enforced against politicians not pragmatic?

Are you going to dodge this too? I know you are afraid of me, but trust me, I won't hurt you, even if in the same room, let alone with electronic words. So you can willypuss around the issue and still be safe. I still want to know where you prags are?

Anonymous said...

David - when I first saw your headline I had a chuckle and thought that maybe you were getting your brit humor on today or something. Then I read the article and saw that actually is his name!

Watching the Newshour this eve I saw that Hillary Clinton was sharing a stage with this Nutter chap today talking about her own program to fight crime from the fed level.

The televised parts with Clinton I saw didn't directly reference much of this Nutter's plan. She just made reference to 'getting illegal guns off the streets'.

What this Nutter has in mind is troubling in its way - and even moreso in light of a potential Czar sharing a stage with him - both of them grandstanding their plans for such a brave new world.

David Codrea said...

Actually, PNO, I was doing both.

I playn with words all the time, even if I'm the only one who notices. That's part of the fun of writing.

Sebastian said...

There's no penalty for violating preemption outlined in the UFA. The penalty is that the ordinances passed aren't actually laws that can be legally enforced. If they are enforced, there are civil remedies, both federal and state, and there's possibly one misdemeanor under our "Official Oppression" statute.

But someone has to actually enforce it, and what I'm hearing from people in the city in law enforcement, they've gotten no orders through the official channels. Yet. Once they do, we'll have a case, but we don't yet.

David Codrea said...

Who is the best attorney in PA for this area of the law?

I'm not unserious here, I think daring the Nutter admin to enforce it by publicly defying it is worth exploring and doing, but with eyes open as to legal options. And there is no better single edict he signed to test him on than the "AW" ban--the others require a dealer (one gun a month) or a theft that is detected and ureported, or a restraining order or a determination of "risk posing."

The only one of the five that can be accomplished by a citizen on his own is defiance of the semiauto ban, and I'd like to see such an effort organized in a very public way to where he wouldn't dare enforce it.

Sebastian said...

I'll run this by Dan (President of PAFOA, smaller group, about 7k members) because he actually lives in the city and knows one of the shop owners there. That shop is actually doing a Glock Day, this weekend, which has gotten a lot of media attention. Oddly enough, I would have expected Joe Grace, President of CeaseFire PA to condemn it, but they actually stated they had no problem. It's a very odd reaction from that group, which normally I would have expected "This is just very insensitive in a city so plagued with gun violence" or some similar bullshit.

But a "Buy and AR-15" day once the AW portion becomes enforceable is an interesting idea if the shop owner is willing to go along with it.

David Codrea said...

The part of the law I'm interested in challenging, and thought I'd made clear, is the prohibition on possession. That is an affront to all citizens.

You don't need to buy a gun to make that happen.

Anonymous said...

It is against the law to conspire to deny civil rights. He has done that in violation of the state and federal constitutions and Pennsylvania statute. Conspiracy to commit an illegal act is a felony.

Even if the act being conspired is only a misdemeanor.

There are plenty of grounds on which to arrest him. Where is your demand that he be arrested?

Or is it the pragmatic thing to do to pretend you believe the "good old boy" club rather than demand they do their job, rather than protecting and shielding a brother politician from the law.

Wouldn't want to establish that precedent, would we? Heaven forbid! That laws would apply to elected officials.