Taking the advice of Mayor Ed Pawlowski, Allentown City Council unanimously voted to repeal some of its firearms ordinances to comply with a new Pennsylvania law Wednesday night.
The city faced a lawsuit by the Lehigh Valley Tea Party if it did not repeal those gun laws, because that new state law allows organizations to sue municipalities.
The city repealed its gun laws so it would not be sued.
Pawlowski did not attend council’s meeting, but city managing director Francis Dougherty read a statement from the mayor.
“I cannot put the city at risk of heavy financial loss with potential lawsuits,” said Pawlowski.
“We elected leaders of Allentown have a collective fiduciary responsibility to repeal the ordinances and adhere to current state law.
“We all took an oath to uphold the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and to protect our great city.”
The new state law, Act 192, allows individuals or organizations to sue municipalities if they have gun laws that are stricter than state laws.
Philadelphia, Pittsburgh and Lancaster, as well as some state legislators, already have filed their own lawsuits in Commonwealth Court to overturn Act 192 —which went into effect on Jan 5.
Allentown is the third largest city in the state and “the mayor has a responsibility to join this fight against this particular law,” declared former City Council member Michael Donovan, who unsuccessfully tried to unseat Pawlowski in the 2013 election.
Donovan reminded council members that they are a political body and have a role as public policy makers.
“If other cities in the state are fighting this, and we are the third largest city, I suggest you get on the mayor to say join that fight,” he said.
Dr. Fritz Walker of South Whitehall, who introduced himself as a member of the board of directors of CeaseFirePA, had a different suggestion for council.
“If you must repeal the gun ordinances, please consider doing so with the proviso that should Act 192 be overturned, the laws will automatically and immediately be re-instated, without requiring an additional vote of the council,” said Walker.
“This will send a clear message regarding your belief in the importance of these ordinances.”
Council declined to take Walker’s suggestion.
“We can’t do that,” said council vice president Julio Guridy. “We would have to write another bill.”
“If court challenges are successful, I will be the first to re-introduce our ordinances for council’s consideration and support,” promised Pawlowski in his statement.
“The fight here needs to be with the state legislature,” stated the mayor. “I will be there every step of the way to get sensible and modern-day laws enacted, such as the ones that we are proposing to repeal here tonight.”
Dougherty told council that 22 municipalities across the state already have repealed their gun laws and “at least 100 municipalities, such as ours, have been placed on notice of the law on the books, which is prompting us to take this action.”
Other local municipalities have repealed their firearms ordinances to avoid being sued, with little fanfare or controversy.
But Allentown council’s vote during its regular Wednesday night meeting was preceded by the full council holding a special committee-of-the-whole meeting on the issue.
Thirteen people addressed council during its 6:15 p.m. committee-of-the-whole meeting.
Some of them spoke again during the regular council meeting that followed at 7 p.m.
Some comments at the meetings sounded like a broader debate about gun control and gun violence — including in Allentown.
Donovan was the only person who addressed council that was applauded, when he said: “I would love to see the city of Allentown join the lawsuit.”
That spurred council president Ray O’Connell to warn the audience that clapping and cheering are not appropriate at a City Council meeting.
O’Connell threatened to end the meeting if it happened again. “I’m not trying to be mean or disrespectful,” he said.
Allentown laws repealed
Pawlowski said the city laws being repealed were “effective and reasonable.”
One of them required owners of firearms that are lost or stolen to report that loss or theft to local law enforcement officials within 24 hours.
The city enacted that law in 2008.
Another repealed law prohibited using, carrying or discharging firearms of any kind on any city property.
It now only prohibits anyone from “unlawfully” discharging firearms within city limits or on any city property.
Hunting still will be prohibited on all city property.
Also repealed was a regulation prohibiting firearms in city parks or recreation areas.
Council member Jeanette Eichenwald was concerned that the city still could be subject to legal action because of a possible loophole.
While council removed language that prohibited using, carrying or discharging firearms of any kind on city property, Eichenwald was concerned that a prohibition against “any other forms of weapons dangerous to human safety” was not removed from that same law.
“A firearm produces danger,” said Eichenwald. “Couldn’t one argue that any form of a dangerous weapon could include a firearm? A firearm is a weapon. How can you read this to exclude firearms?
“If we’re doing this to prevent the city from being sued, why would we not make sure the language is so perfectly clear that it would not put us into any jeopardy?”
Assistant city solicitor Frances Fruhwirth said Eichenwald raised a very good point, but added: “This is the drafting we feel comfortable with in addressing a problem at hand.”
“If our solicitor is comfortable with this language, I will bow to that,” said Eichenwald.
Despite her concern, she joined her colleagues in voting to repeal the laws with no additional changes.
Council opinions
“I don’t want to put the city in jeopardy of being sued,” said council vice president Julio Guridy before the vote. “It could be costly for the citizens.”
“We really do not have a choice,” said Eichenwald. “Based on the law, the way it presently is interpreted, we need to repeal this. If not, we definitely open ourselves up for a lawsuit, which will cause us financial harm.”
Eichenwald hopes the state will repeal Act 192.
“I cannot believe we’re being put into this position by our own state legislature,” said council member Joe Davis.
He added any organization anywhere could sue the city “and put us in financial difficulties because we’re trying to protect our citizens.”
Davis and others noted someone now could legally take a gun to a City Council meeting, but they would not be allowed to carry a firearm into the state capitol, where the legislature meets.
O’Connell’s opinion on the issue? “Common sense, throw it out the window.”
Residents speak
A couple of people sought to bring the issue home by reminding council members of the three people killed by an angry resident during a municipal meeting in August 2013 in Ross Township, Monroe County.
“City Council meetings are a place where tempers flare,” said Walker. “Guns and council meetings are a recipe for tragedy.”
Almost everyone who addressed council objected to Allentown’s firearms laws being weakened by the state.
“I urge you to hold onto our local ordinances while the constitutionality of Act 192 is decided,” said resident Carol Gonzalez.
“This makes no sense,” said city resident Ed Degrace. “Do not repeal this law.”
“I find it really offensive that the NRA [National Rifle Association] can bully us,” said resident Kate Riker. “This is insane, absolutely nuts.”
But a very different opinion was offered by city resident Eric Trimmer, a Lehigh Valley Tea Party member who told council it is disingenuous to expect residents to obey any city laws when the city will not respect the state’s laws. “If you want us to obey your laws, you should obey the state laws.”
“History has shown that when you pass gun laws, all you do is disarm law-abiding citizens,” said Trimmer. “Criminals still carry guns.”
Tea Party threatens to sue Allentown
Tom Campione of Hellertown, vice chairman of the Lehigh Valley Tea Party, told City Council that on Jan. 12 his organization’s attorney sent a letter to Allentown’s solicitor about city ordinances that violate the new state law, which had been passed only seven days earlier.
That letter, from Atty. Thomas Carroll of Bethlehem, threatened legal action against the city if it did not repeal the ordinances.
Campione urged council to do the right thing by repealing “the offending ordinances.”
He acknowledged there are residents “and perhaps some council members” who would like the ordinances to remain. “However, the reality is the city is not authorized to regulate firearms in any manner. That power is reserved to the state legislature.”
Campione also warned council that, if his organization would sue the city under Act 192, “you’re immediately on the hook —liable for all reasonable plaintiff legal fees.”
Speaking immediately after Campione, Rev. Phyllis Cucchiani beseeched council “not to be intimidated by those who would have you worry about money when God is in control. I’m urging you to take the risk and confront the NRA and the Tea Party.”
Donovan said he was offended that a member of the Tea Party “comes from out of town and basically threatens the city…and tells us what we should or should not do.”
Pawlowski’s statement
In his statement, Pawlowski called himself a law-and-order advocate with a strong record of promoting reasonable and sensible gun laws.
He said Allentown was one of the first cities to join Mayors Against Illegal Guns and CeaseFirePA.
While calling himself a fierce advocate of the Second Amendment, the mayor also stated: “I have publicly and vocally stood up for common-sense gun legislation and, as a result, have been the target of the NRA on numerous occasions for my stands on this issue.”
Walker of CeaseFirePA said it was an outrage that Pennsylvania’s legislators would kowtow to the NRA and create such a law as Act 192.
“It is a law that is almost certainly unconstitutional,” he said.
Elaborating, Walker maintained Act 192 clearly violates the single subject provision of the state’s constitution, which states: “No bill shall be passed containing more than one subject.”
He explained Act 192 got passed by being attached to an unrelated bill about increasing penalties for the theft of copper and other metals from building sites.
At the start of the discussion, Dougherty told council the new state law is designed to give gun owners and gun rights groups “a better chance at dismantling local firearms ordinances.”
Eichenwald was troubled that the state would enact legislation giving any organization the ability to sue a municipality that wishes to protect its residents, “even when that organization has suffered no harm.”
from 69News:Home http://ift.tt/16khoX0
0 commentaires:
Enregistrer un commentaire