Pittsburgh passed new gun-control ordinances Tuesday that ban the use of semi-automatic weapons in public and allow courts to seize weapons from individuals showing “red flag” signs of extreme risk.
Related Stories: NEWS: House Pushes First Gun Control Bills in a Generation
The laws, which were immediately challenged by pro-gun groups, come six months after the Tree of Life synagogue massacre that killed 11 people and injured seven in Pittsburgh. A survivor who was there when the gunman opened fire with his AR-15 rifle gathered with the Pittsburgh City Council as they signed the bills, the Post-Gazette newspaper reported. Violators would have to pay a civil penalty up to $1,000.
Mayor Bill Peduto said his city was taking matters into its own hands after similar efforts for gun-control legislation failed at the state and federal levels.
“We have tried to get that change through Harrisburg, we have tried to get that change through Washington, and we have taken steps backward, not forward,” Peduto said. “So what we’re saying is in communities across this state … in cities around this country, we will take action.”
Related Stories: NEWS: 2019 Brings Stricter Gun Laws
However, the National Rifle Association is challenging the city’s definition of large-capacity magazine with a lawsuit. The new laws consider any clip that carries more than 10 rounds as “large capacity.” The lawsuit argues that magazines that accept more than 10 rounds are popular not just for rifles but also for handguns.
The four plaintiffs said because of Pittsburgh’s new law, they “will be forced to alter their behavior and to incur additional expense.” They name the mayor and city council in the suit. The lawsuit reads, “[b]y banning the public possession and transportation of loaded standard-capacity firearm magazines that can carry more than 10 rounds of ammunition, Pittsburgh has violated the rights of its citizens and exceeded its authority under Pennsylvania law.”
The laws cleared the council by a 6-3 margin. The NRA cited statements from the three dissenting council members in its lawsuit.
For full original, story: www.upi.com
Violate and don't pay eff em.
Lame though, NRA only suing over capacity, because red flag laws are dangerous. The snowflakes in public freak over every little thing. I'm in pain
every day and grimace the whole time and a snowflake could use that as I'm dangerous and bam cops will surround my home and take my guns.
I have a neighbor who I argue with all the time over his loud music he could target me because I yell at him. Showing emotions in public other than
smiling is almost against the law. I can't help the way I look and see all kinds of people who aren't that much different looking than me, but
because I grimace, and I notice people treating me differently than the other sad sack behind me.
And for the ones who say different you're probably not poor, or barely over the poor line.
But yes red flag laws are a very dangerous law and will be one of our worst nightmares. Several states have passed these kinds of laws already so....
New Zealand has laws of their own and the only good one I know of is making a madman's identity disappear to prevent notoriety and copycats.
Lawmakers make laws and lawbreakers could care less. AT WHAT TIME HAS MURDER BEEN LEGAL???
A magazine has NEVER harmed anyone- EVER.
It's like banning a chainsaw if a lumberman who drops a tree on your home.
Make murder 100% death penalty and bury the body in a unmarked grave on the prison property.
This is a strange Idea of in public.Does this mean you cannot go to a public shooting range without breaking the law? And anywhere more than one person gathers is considered being in public.To me this reads as a restriction in owning or transporting firearms.Bad ordinance which should be overturned.