Well FTGF, I live in Philly and I know intimately the conditions and political climate of this city and the state.
So that we don't engage in "speculation" allow me to offer a short history lesson.
PA's constitutions have always excepted from state power any ability to impact the RKBA of the citizens. PA's first constitution was ratified in 1776 and was rewritten and ratified in 1790 after the establishment of the United States. Article IX, Section 21 of the
1790 PA constitution stated, (140K pdf) predating the US Bill of Rights:
"That the general, great, and essential principles of liberty and free Government may be recognized and unalterably established, WE DECLARE, . . .
XXI That the right of citizens to bear arms, in defence of themselves and the State, shall not be questioned."
The present constitution was drafted in 1872-73 and
ratified in 1874 and a significant and important change in structure was established. The Article declaring the rights of the citizen was moved from Article IX becoming Article I, "DECLARATION OF RIGHTS". Note that this declaration is made
before any powers are conferred from the people. Section 21 remained virtually the same.
"The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."
Other articles are worth mentioning as well, the present Article I, Section 25 (which was Section 26 in the 1790 document):
"To guard against the transgressions of the high powers which we have delegated, we declare that everything in this article is excepted out of the general powers of government and shall forever remain inviolate."
So the legislature can not even contemplate the subjects of Article I; their jurisdiction and duty
begins and only extends to the subjects listed in Article II or other relevant
later Articles,
Article I is closed to them. I do not see any possibility that they can grant themselves the power to grant someone else the power (Phila City Council) to violate the PA constitution.
In 1967 another Section was added to Article I and it became Section 26, forbidding any city to take such action on their own, extending these inviolate exceptions of power to injure the rights of PA citizens to
all political subdivisions:
"Neither the Commonwealth nor any political subdivision thereof shall deny to any person the enjoyment of any civil right, nor discriminate against any person in the exercise of any civil right."
Of course Phila did anyway under "Fast Eddie" Rendell and suits were filed and the case wound up in the PA Supreme Court. In 1996 in a case named
Ortiz v. Commonwealth, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court said:
"Because the ownership of firearms is constitutionally protected, its regulation is a matter of statewide concern. The constitution does not provide that the right to bear arms shall not be questioned in any part of the commonwealth except Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, where it may be abridged at will, but that it shall not be questioned in any part of the commonwealth. Thus, regulation of firearms is a matter of concern in all of Pennsylvania, not merely in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, and the General Assembly, not city councils, is the proper forum for the imposition of such regulation."
That is the present state of affairs here. Right now, these bills and their enactment and enforcement is intended to elicit an expected response; the resultant legal response from injured citizens in the courts is anticipated and welcomed by the present city leadership. They know that there is no hope of getting their desired laws passed in the normal, legislative way and in agreement with
Ortiz so they are just going about it in the liberal way; hoping that political hacks on the bench will "interpret" the constitution and thus legitimize illegitimate law.
The recent elections have reshaped the Supreme Court (yes judges, even justices of the State supreme court are
elected in PA) so the hope is that the city's new laws will be endorsed by the "reshaped" court because you know, the PA constitution has undergone a fundamental metamorphosis in the last dozen years. The reasoning is the new tide of left leaning judges will rewrite in the fresh unblemished sand what the PA constitution means NOW and how the above sections of Article I can just be ignored.
So, here are the bills introduced into City Council that City Council will certainly pass and Mayor Nutter has promised to enforce. Presently there is no on-line source for the text of these bills.
Bill No. 080015: Prohibit the possession or acquisition of firearms by persons charged with certain criminal offenses.
Bill No. 080016: Acquisition or Transfer of Firearms. To regulate the acquiring or transferring of any firearm within the City of Philadelphia.
Bill No. 080017: Temporary Removal Of Firearms Of Persons Posing A risk Of Imminent Personal Injury To Self Or Others.
Bill No. 080018: Prohibited Possession, Sale and Transfer of Firearms by Persons Subject to Protection From Abuse Orders.
Bill No. 080032: Failure to Report Lost or Stolen Firearm. Requiring prompt notification of lost or stolen firearms and imposing penalties.
Bill No. 080033: Contraband Weapons, Accessories and Ammunition. Prohibition and registration of certain assault weapons and imposing penalties.
Bill No. 080034: Sale or Transfer of Ammunition. Require all sales of ammunition for firearms to be reported to the City of Philadelphia Police Department and to require that Department to maintain a registry of such reports.
Bill No. 080035: Straw and Multiple Handgun Purchase Reduction. Limit purchases of handguns by Philadelphia residents to one a month, and to prohibit ‘straw purchases’ of handguns utilized by criminals for the purpose of evading the one handgun a month limitation.
Bill No. 080036: Reporting Requirements Upon the Application for or Renewal of a License to Carry a Firearm. Provide for certain reporting requirements for the issuance or renewal of licenses to carry firearms within the City of Philadelphia.
If Mayor Nutter were able to present a persuasive legal argument for overturning
Ortiz, -- an argument based on a credible analysis of why the case was wrongly decided in the first place -- there would be honor in that approach. But when the plan is simply to test whether the Court's new members are willing to permit gun control whereas the old were not . . . well, that's just disingenuous. It implies the new mayor's and Phila City Council's low opinion of the court's integrity and the supremacy of the constitution. It is pitiful, shameful and disgusting in a city once referred to as the "Cradle of Liberty" In this city Liberty, as defined by the PA constitution, is on a ventilator and Nutter and City Council is standing on the hose.
And as the question on licensing goes:
"It is a license tax - a flat tax imposed on the exercise of a privilege granted by the Bill of Rights. A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution."
Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943)
As soon a
Heller comes back with its unavoidable determination that the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right, expect thousands of gun control laws to be challenged and struck down. Your side had many years to enact laws that could pass constitutional muster and you just sat back resting on legal theories which are nothing more than smoke and mirrors . . .
Oh well.