Attorneys for the city of Harrisburg asked a federal judge Friday to dismiss claims by a Pennsylvania gun ownersgroup thatcity ordinances violate their Second Amendmentrights. <\/p>\n
The motion filed late Friday by the city's attorneys concluded the Second Amendment claims are\"baseless\" because the state and federal constitutions allow cities to adopt reasonable regulations to protect the public. <\/p>\n
Harrisburg's five gun ordinances do not infringe upon gun owners' rights to bear arms, according to the motion written by Frank Lavery and Joshua Autry, of the Lavery Faherty law firm. <\/p>\n
The lawsuit by Firearms Owners Against Crime represents the second one filed against Harrisburg under a new state law known as Act 192. The law allows any legal gun owner to sue any municipality in Pennsylvania to challenge its gun ordinances and seek reimbursement for all legal costs. <\/p>\n
A state judge is weighing arguments in the first lawsuit, filed on behalf of a gun rights group called U.S. Law Shield. Attorneys for U.S. Law Shield asked for a preliminary injunction against Harrisburg's ordinances, but city attorneys argued for the court to wait until the Commonwealth Court rules on the constitutionality of Act 192. <\/p>\n
Both lawsuits contend Harrisburg's gun ordinances are illegal under the state's preeminence in regulating guns. <\/p>\n
The Firearms Owners lawsuit goes a step further by seeking financial damages and alleging the ordinances violate gun owners' Second Amendment rights. The gun owners said they fear prosecution and can't defend themselves under the ordinances, which they say make no distinction for lawful gun use. <\/p>\n
The motion Friday dismantled the lawsuit's allegations about the ordinances violating their constitutional rights, one by one: <\/p>\n
The motion also asked the judge to hold off rulings on the rest of the lawsuit until the Commonwealth Court rules on the constitutionality of Act 192. <\/p>\n
Still, the motion laid out the city's defense against the lawsuit's assertion that the city cannot enact any gun ordinances because that right uniquely belongs to the state. <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Read more here: Attorneys for the city of Harrisburg asked a federal judge Friday to dismiss claims by a Pennsylvania gun ownersgroup thatcity ordinances violate their Second Amendmentrights. The motion filed late Friday by the city's attorneys concluded the Second Amendment claims are\"baseless\" because the state and federal constitutions allow cities to adopt reasonable regulations to protect the public. Harrisburg's five gun ordinances do not infringe upon gun owners' rights to bear arms, according to the motion written by Frank Lavery and Joshua Autry, of the Lavery Faherty law firm. Continue reading
\nCity of Harrisburg asks judge to dump Second Amendment claims from gun lawsuit<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"