Pittsburgh gun safety proposal would ban semiautomatic rifles

[Pilot1]

AR-15's are COMMON USE, and protected by the 2A, and Heller. They are the most popular rifle in the U.S. by far. It is a great deterrent to home, or business invasion where there are multiple attackers, great hunting rifles, and great for target shooting and competition. They are America's rifle.

This law is illegal in PA, and both the Mayor, and Governor know that, and are just politically grandstanding.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

Pittsburgh Mayor Bill Peduto was joined by Gov. Tom Wolf, members of City Council and state Democratic lawmakers Friday in proposing legislation that would ban semiautomatic rifles and certain ammunition and firearms accessories within city limits.

Pittsburgh gun safety proposal would ban semiautomatic rifles
--------------------------------------------------------

Well now we can add that NJ is doing this Hmmm wonder if it will trickle across the country with all the snowflake ***** freaks out there.

Lol
Too bad progressives have no idea what semi auto means...

Irrelevant if they are successful at taking them away.
It all leads down the same path.

And there's nothing funny about what's happening.
Ask ANYONE in Venezuela not closely tied to the Dictator.

The Constitution will fail to defend you.....
If YOU fail to defend the Constitution.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

These rifles are protected by the 2nd Amendment, as clarified in the D.C. v Heller decision......written by Justice Scalia, and for those morons on the lower court, he also explained in Friedman v Highland Park that AR-15 rifles are specifically protected by the 2nd Amendment.....

It doesn't matter anyway. Pennsylvania state law doesn't allow individual cities to implement their own gun regulations.

No, it matters because STATES are attempting to over-rule the US Constitution.

What "doesn't matter" IS THE CONSTITUTION, if We The people Allow them to do it.

The Constitution will fail to defend you.....
If YOU fail to defend the Constitution.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Slightly later 2018: Pittsburgh Mayor Trying To Pass Illegal And Unconstitutional Gun Ban.

They should have to "muster the City militia"; we have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our Cities.

because then the group of city militia people....will get called vigilantes....

Why is that? Simply having People muster and present Arms in public should reduce crime.

because after they confront the "bad guys" out in public, people like you will say they are vigilantes and should not be mustering and presenting arms in public, they could be a danger to the people at large......

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

yea good luck with getting the legislature in your state to provide for that

 

[danielpalos]

it is the common law for the common defense.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The government sure as hell doesn't own the airwaves. When did it buy them? Radio licensing was the first major incursion into free speech by the federal government.

I don't disagree. Just using their arguments against them.

.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Ban bullets, the Constitutional protection is for arms, not bullets.

And you just demonstrated why we don't leave our Rights to people like you...

Your rights have already been infringed, you can’t own a nuke. Among a ton of other arms.

So, what are you arguing? We should have nukes and machine guns?

Very well. I agree.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Slightly later 2018: Pittsburgh Mayor Trying To Pass Illegal And Unconstitutional Gun Ban.

I support your right to own hand guns, rifles, shot guns as long as you are trained and licensed by proper authorities (the police? the military?)

I support your right to own automatic weapons as long as you are trained and licensed by proper authorities..

I will always VOTE to ensure your rights.

I don't believe I saw the words "as long as" anywhere in the text of the 2nd Amendment. Also, what other constitutional right is bound to licensing, and wherein is the authority to require such licensing?

There are time /place / manner restrictions on all our rights .

Why do you think people get permits for rallies?

Timmy, there’s good reason we shot your Brit asses when you tried to take our guns, and that reason is just as valid today.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

The Pittsburgh proposal applies, basically, to "assault" weapons, which make up only a small part of "semiautomatic" weapons. It is silly and possibly unconstitutional, but it should be reported accurately, eh?

Semi-automatics are not "assault weapons".. Functionally there is no difference between a semi-automatic .223 hunting rifle and an AR-15. They are trying to ban cosmetics because they make the rifle look scary.

 

[Timmy]

The Pittsburgh proposal applies, basically, to "assault" weapons, which make up only a small part of "semiautomatic" weapons. It is silly and possibly unconstitutional, but it should be reported accurately, eh?

Semi-automatics are not "assault weapons".. Functionally there is no difference between a semi-automatic .223 hunting rifle and an AR-15. They are trying to ban cosmetics because they make the rifle look scary.

Not true . They want to ban high powered weapons specifically designed to cause major injury to people .

 

[Pellinore]

I tried to find this story reported in a responsible, respected news service. Unfortunately, all I could find was CNN. (rim shot)
Pittsburgh City Council to consider ban on assault weapons, bump-stocks. - CNN

The article does mention the pushback by gun-rights advocates, including some pretty solid-sounding state law:

"This legislation is not only misguided, but it's illegal," Kim Stolfer, a gun rights advocate and co-founder of Firearms Owners Against Crime, told CNN affiliate WPXI.
According to state law: "No county, municipality or township may in any manner regulate the lawful ownership, possession, transfer or transportation of firearms, ammunition or ammunition components when carried or transported for purposes not prohibited by the laws of this Commonwealth."

Combined with the report in there also that the state Governor supports this local law, that makes me think that they know it will get struck down, but hope it will inspire a push to change the state laws. Who knows.

 

[Pellinore]

The Pittsburgh proposal applies, basically, to "assault" weapons, which make up only a small part of "semiautomatic" weapons. It is silly and possibly unconstitutional, but it should be reported accurately, eh?

Semi-automatics are not "assault weapons".. Functionally there is no difference between a semi-automatic .223 hunting rifle and an AR-15. They are trying to ban cosmetics because they make the rifle look scary.

There really is no such thing as a defined "assault weapon." It's a vague term that needs to be defined in every law that purports to regulate them ... which is exactly what this one does, specifying (per the CNN article) "any rifles with a pistol grip, folding stock and detachable magazine. The legislation specifically bans several AR-15 style weapons by name." So there you have it.

Generally, though, you're correct - often the only difference between a Sunday morning hunting rifle and a terrifying assault weapon is the paint job.

 

[progressive hunter]

The Pittsburgh proposal applies, basically, to "assault" weapons, which make up only a small part of "semiautomatic" weapons. It is silly and possibly unconstitutional, but it should be reported accurately, eh?

sorry but all guns sticks and rocks can be assault weapons, along with toothpicks and fuzzy bears

this is because of course the fact that assault is an action and a gun is a thing

specifics matter bob

 

[danielpalos]

I tried to find this story reported in a responsible, respected news service. Unfortunately, all I could find was CNN. (rim shot)
Pittsburgh City Council to consider ban on assault weapons, bump-stocks. - CNN

The article does mention the pushback by gun-rights advocates, including some pretty solid-sounding state law:

"This legislation is not only misguided, but it's illegal," Kim Stolfer, a gun rights advocate and co-founder of Firearms Owners Against Crime, told CNN affiliate WPXI.
According to state law: "No county, municipality or township may in any manner regulate the lawful ownership, possession, transfer or transportation of firearms, ammunition or ammunition components when carried or transported for purposes not prohibited by the laws of this Commonwealth."

Combined with the report in there also that the state Governor supports this local law, that makes me think that they know it will get struck down, but hope it will inspire a push to change the state laws. Who knows.

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.

don't grab guns! grab gun lovers and regulate them well!

 

[2aguy]

The Pittsburgh proposal applies, basically, to "assault" weapons, which make up only a small part of "semiautomatic" weapons. It is silly and possibly unconstitutional, but it should be reported accurately, eh?

Semi-automatics are not "assault weapons".. Functionally there is no difference between a semi-automatic .223 hunting rifle and an AR-15. They are trying to ban cosmetics because they make the rifle look scary.

Not true . They want to ban high powered weapons specifically designed to cause major injury to people .

No, they aren't. The AR-15, a rifle that is specifically protected by the 2nd Amendment per the Heller decision as explained by Scalia.......is not a high powered weapon.... the AR-15 is no different from any other semi automatic rifle....the reality is you asshats think you can get it banned through emotion......and you think if you get that rifle banned, you can come back and demand all the other semi automatic rifles, pistols and shotguns be banned because they do all operate the same way, no difference.

A 5 shot, pump action shot gun was used to murder 20 college students in Crimea....that is 2 more than were killed at Parkland with the shooter using an AR-15....so your point does not hold up to reality.

It is the gun free zone, and helpless, unarmed people who can't fight back that creates the murder rate in mass public shootings.....and again, when citizens have their legal guns with them in mass public shootings, they are 94% effective at stopping the shooter and/or limiting the number of injured and killed....

94% effective....and you guys still support gun free zones.....

 

[2aguy]

The Pittsburgh proposal applies, basically, to "assault" weapons, which make up only a small part of "semiautomatic" weapons. It is silly and possibly unconstitutional, but it should be reported accurately, eh?

Semi-automatics are not "assault weapons".. Functionally there is no difference between a semi-automatic .223 hunting rifle and an AR-15. They are trying to ban cosmetics because they make the rifle look scary.

There really is no such thing as a defined "assault weapon." It's a vague term that needs to be defined in every law that purports to regulate them ... which is exactly what this one does, specifying (per the CNN article) "any rifles with a pistol grip, folding stock and detachable magazine. The legislation specifically bans several AR-15 style weapons by name." So there you have it.

Generally, though, you're correct - often the only difference between a Sunday morning hunting rifle and a terrifying assault weapon is the paint job.

Actually, there is...

Defining "Assault Weapons" | The Regulatory Review


According to the Defense Intelligence Agency, “assault rifles” are“short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between a submachine gun and rifle cartridges.”

All assault rifles are capable of automatic fire.

Examples include the U.S. Army M-16, the Soviet AK-47, and the German Sturmgewehr.

No guns that are dubbed “assault weapons” are assault rifles—but some of them do look similar, because the small parts that make a gun automatic are internal and not visible.

The AR-15 is not capable of automatic fire..it is a civilian rifle....and even then, military rifles are protected by the 2nd Amendment.

And here.....a definition from a Supreme court case....

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/92-1441.ZO.html

The AR-15 is the civilian version of the military's M-16 rifle, and is, unless modified, a semiautomatic weapon. The M-16, in contrast, is a selective fire rifle that allows the operator, by rotating a selector switch, to choose semiautomatic or automatic fire.

 

[Pellinore]

Ban bullets, the Constitutional protection is for arms, not bullets.

And you just demonstrated why we don't leave our Rights to people like you...

Your rights have already been infringed, you can’t own a nuke. Among a ton of other arms.

One of Justice Scalia's favorite reminders for us was that the Second Amendment specified "keep and bear arms," implying that it applies only to weapons you can pick up and carry. Thus, it did not grant the Minutemen the right to personally own cannons or battleships, which in modern times would include artillery guns or nuclear weapons.

That said, your point does still work when applied to fully-automatic machine guns or surface-to-air missiles. Both are hand-portable but are severely restricted under the 1934 NFA. The legal precedent has already been set to restrict which weapons we can own under the Second Amendment.

There are time /place / manner restrictions on all our rights .

Why do you think people get permits for rallies?

But, there is absolutely no time/place/manner restriction in one's home or car.

So, I can have whatever weapon I choose in my home or car, right?

Sure there are . You can’t scream out profanities out your window at 2 am. (Speech)
You can’t marry a 12 year old (religion)
You can’t post kiddee porn (press) .

There’s all kinds of limits to our rights .

Freedom does not preclude consequences.

I am free to yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater all I like. If everyone laughs and no one gets hurt, there is no crime.

Timmy is correct. 'Fire' in a crowded theater is an illustration, there is no law prohibiting that word specifically in that place. There are, however, laws against sedition, slander, incitement of a riot, and so on, that are clear limits to the right to free speech.

 

[2aguy]

Ban bullets, the Constitutional protection is for arms, not bullets.

And you just demonstrated why we don't leave our Rights to people like you...

Your rights have already been infringed, you can’t own a nuke. Among a ton of other arms.

One of Justice Scalia's favorite reminders for us was that the Second Amendment specified "keep and bear arms," implying that it applies only to weapons you can pick up and carry. Thus, it did not grant the Minutemen the right to personally own cannons or battleships, which in modern times would include artillery guns or nuclear weapons.

That said, your point does still work when applied to fully-automatic machine guns or surface-to-air missiles. Both are hand-portable but are severely restricted under the 1934 NFA. The legal precedent has already been set to restrict which weapons we can own under the Second Amendment.

There are time /place / manner restrictions on all our rights .

Why do you think people get permits for rallies?

But, there is absolutely no time/place/manner restriction in one's home or car.

So, I can have whatever weapon I choose in my home or car, right?

Sure there are . You can’t scream out profanities out your window at 2 am. (Speech)
You can’t marry a 12 year old (religion)
You can’t post kiddee porn (press) .

There’s all kinds of limits to our rights .

Freedom does not preclude consequences.

I am free to yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater all I like. If everyone laughs and no one gets hurt, there is no crime.

Timmy is correct. 'Fire' in a crowded theater is an illustration, there is no law prohibiting that word specifically in that place. There are, however, laws against sedition, slander, incitement of a riot, and so on, that are clear limits to the right to free speech.

No...again, you can't use your freedom of speech to harm other people.....what they want to do with gun bans is prevent any exercise of the Right, even when it is lawful...that is not a correct limit on a Right.....

 

[danielpalos]

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

 

[Taz]

Ban bullets, the Constitutional protection is for arms, not bullets.

And you just demonstrated why we don't leave our Rights to people like you...

Your rights have already been infringed, you can’t own a nuke. Among a ton of other arms.

One of Justice Scalia's favorite reminders for us was that the Second Amendment specified "keep and bear arms," implying that it applies only to weapons you can pick up and carry. Thus, it did not grant the Minutemen the right to personally own cannons or battleships, which in modern times would include artillery guns or nuclear weapons.

That said, your point does still work when applied to fully-automatic machine guns or surface-to-air missiles. Both are hand-portable but are severely restricted under the 1934 NFA. The legal precedent has already been set to restrict which weapons we can own under the Second Amendment.

There are time /place / manner restrictions on all our rights .

Why do you think people get permits for rallies?

But, there is absolutely no time/place/manner restriction in one's home or car.

So, I can have whatever weapon I choose in my home or car, right?

Sure there are . You can’t scream out profanities out your window at 2 am. (Speech)
You can’t marry a 12 year old (religion)
You can’t post kiddee porn (press) .

There’s all kinds of limits to our rights .

Freedom does not preclude consequences.

I am free to yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater all I like. If everyone laughs and no one gets hurt, there is no crime.

Timmy is correct. 'Fire' in a crowded theater is an illustration, there is no law prohibiting that word specifically in that place. There are, however, laws against sedition, slander, incitement of a riot, and so on, that are clear limits to the right to free speech.

Suitcase nukes and dirty bombs are outlawed. Not sure that you're allowed to mine the perimeter of your land either.