Advocates of gun control in Pennsylvania have urged the state's top court to knock down a law that was passed last 2014. The said law allows gun-rights lobbying group to sue cities that contradict with the gun possession law.
The National Rifle Association together with other gun-right advocates said the law is necessary for preventing gun owners from becoming a victim of a patchwork of municipal ordinances that violate their rights to own guns. Gun control advocates, on the other hand, said the law is technically wrong and was passed as a part of an unrelated piece of legislation, as per Reuters.
According to Martin Black, a democratic lawyer that wants to overturn the law, these bills were flagged together for political expediency. He added that there are already 80 towns across Pennsylvania who have repealed gun laws.
Philadelphia and Pittsburgh are now facing lawsuits because of contradicting these laws. The second amendment of the US constitution protects the owners' rights to bear firearms and efforts to regulate gun ownership are often contested.
As reported by News on 6, Pennsylvania has a very strong tradition of owning guns and hunting. But mayors of big cities, together with groups like CeaseFirePA, have pushed gun-control measures in order to fight violence.
According to Lancaster Online, during a session in the legislative department, opponents to the law argued that there is a violation of the constitution because lawmakers combined two unrelated measures which included the firearms legislation and the legislation that deals with scrap metal theft.
The bill was passed on the final day of 2014 and because it was rushed, Governor Tom Corbett even signed the wrong bill. But republican legislators defended the bill, claiming it is necessary because towns ignore laws that make it a criminal violation for towns to pass gun restriction protocols.
Justice David Wecht, who is skeptical of the argument, questioned what suing the city over issues of firearms has to do with stealing copper wires. Attorney Nick Orloff, on the other hand, argued that both bills dealt with prevention of crimes.
