MNGunTalk.com

The court’s 7-0 ruling also reverses its own past decisions that have shielded some local gun ordinances from similar lawsuits under the argument that plaintiffs had not been prosecuted under their terms and therefore could show no harm.

Writing for the majority, Judge Kevin Brobson noted that the appellants here “have no real alternative to address their grievance. They can curb their conduct to conform to the ordinances’ mandates or they can willfully violate the law and face criminal prosecution…

“It makes little sense to wait for appellants to break the law, which we presume they do not want to do, before they can challenge it,” Brobson concluded.

Further, this also makes it clear that pro-gun groups who seek to take on Pittsburgh’s new “assault weapon” ban will also have standing in their lawsuit. This is key as this destroys one of the city’s most likely avenues of attack in the proceedings. Now they’ll have to win on the merits of their case, which means they have to convince the courts that preemption is somehow illegal and shouldn’t stand.

BigBlue wrote:And you would think it wouldn't need to be a citizen opening a lawsuit. Shouldn't the state's attorney general see the city statue that is in violation of state law and take them to court her/himself?

ex-LT wrote:

BigBlue wrote:And you would think it wouldn't need to be a citizen opening a lawsuit. Shouldn't the state's attorney general see the city statue that is in violation of state law and take them to court her/himself?

Yes, he SHOULD. However, PA's AG is a Democrat, and in the 2016 election cycle, received $250K from Michael Bloomberg. Anything that restricts 2A rights will likely get a pass from him.

Holland&Holland wrote:Any guess on how our AG would play it?