Fairfax, Va. – -(AmmoLand.com)- The National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) today applauded a decision by the Allegheny Court of Common Pleas protecting the rights of law-abiding gun owners in Pennsylvania. In the NRA-backed case Anderson v. City of Pittsburgh, the court found that Pittsburgh’s attempt to impose local gun control measures was a clear violation of state law.
“This is a huge victory for law-abiding gun owners and everyone who values freedom in the Keystone state,” said Jason Ouimet, executive director, NRA-ILA. “Cases like this underscore the peoples’ need for judges who will faithfully interpret the law in defense of their rights and liberties.”
At issue was a Pittsburgh restriction on so-called “high capacity” magazines. Pennsylvania, like 45 other states, has a preemption law restricting local governments from passing gun control measures that are more restrictive than state law.
Preemption laws protect law-abiding gun owners from dealing with a confusing patchwork of laws in a single state.
“We are grateful that the Allegheny Court of Common Pleas saw what is clear on the face of the statute, that the general assembly alone regulates firearms in Pennsylvania,” said attorney Jonathan Goldstein, partner at McNelly and Goldstein.
Earlier this month, NRA-backed firearm preemption cases in Washington and Montana voided similar unlawful local ordinances.
“This is a great day for law-abiding Pennsylvania gun owners. The NRA applauds this ruling and will continue defending our constitutional rights everywhere,” Ouimet concluded.
~NRA~
Established in 1871, the National Rifle Association is America’s oldest civil rights and sportsmen’s group. More than five million members strong, NRA continues to uphold the Second Amendment and advocates enforcement of existing laws against violent offenders to reduce crime. The Association remains the nation’s leader in firearm education and training for law-abiding gun owners, law enforcement and the armed services. Follow the NRA on social at Facebook.com/NationalRifleAssociation and Twitter @NRA.
Seems like the NRA has been jumping out in front and claiming credit for a lot this year since all the turmoil at the NRA has been coming to light.
They were not the plaintiffs in this case.
Plaintiffs: Firearm Owners Against Crime, Allegheny County Sportsmen’s League, Firearms Policy Coalition, Firearms Policy Foundation, Matthew Boardley, Saadyah Averick, and Fred Rak
Yes, they were the plaintiffs in this case. This is Anderson vs Pittsburgh. This is not the FPC case.
No, this was the FOAC/FPC case.
See the linked copy of the decision.
https://princelaw.files.wordpress.com/2019/10/court-decision.pdf
Actually the story says Anderson vs City of Pittsburgh… But NRA was so fast to jump in and take credit for there nothing help, that they probably don’t even know what case it was….. Or as normal, the NRA is probably backing the plaintiffs against the gun rights side….
There were two separate cases. FPC’s and the NRA’s. It isn’t that difficult to understand.
OKAY, so how much money did they spend on the case, not just BS news related releases ???? It couldn’t have been much, if anything or they would have made sure it was : NRA, Anderson vs Pittsburgh…
Two different cases:
NRA case
Anderson vs City of Pittsburgh
GD-19-005308
FPC case
Firearm Policy Coalition vs City of Pittsburgh
GD 19-005330
The only lawsuit I want to join is the lawsuit by the members to remove Wayne P-Head from the NRA totally, Fired and Disgraced and sued personally to get our membership money back for all his fraudulent deals, including the suits !!!!! AS a Patron Life Member, I am waiting for someone in the management of the NRA to have the BRASS to do something of that nature !!!! NO more money till they do !!!! And they ought to quit wasting money with letters from WP about all his death threats and plan lying BS to get money …..… Read more »
AMMOLAND, STOP PUBLISHING THESE NRA-HQ PRESS RELEASES. THEY DID NOTHING FOR THIS CASE AT ALL. FPC DID, AND NRA IS JUST TRYING TO RIDE THEIR COATTAILS AS THEY ALWAYS DO TO THE OTHER GUN GROUPS. PUBLISHING THIS RUBBISH ONLY LEGITIMIZES THE KOOLAID THAT THEY FORCE-FEED TO THEIR FUDDS!!
I totally agree !!! Stop publishing BS and tell us WHAT THEY DID, “instead of telling us NRA BACKED,” tell us the exact amount of “backing” financial help or lawyers provided or anything besides “NRA BACKED” BS …. Like the NRA provided $100,000 cash money to fight this particular lawsuit …. I can say I backed it too, which I do because it is a good cause, but if I didn’t provide any help, as in financial help, etc., it is like pissing in the wind !!!! AND WITH WAYNE P-HEAD at the helm, except for buying him over priced… Read more »
Two different cases:
NRA case
Anderson vs City of Pittsburgh
GD-19-005308
FPC case
Firearm Policy Coalition vs City of Pittsburgh
GD 19-005330
This was not the Anderson case brought by the NRA.
This was the case brought by FOAC/FPC.
See the links below:
https://princelaw.files.wordpress.com/2019/10/court-decision.pdf
https://blog.princelaw.com/2019/10/29/pittsburghs-illegal-gun-ordinances-struck-down/
Two different cases:
NRA case
Anderson vs City of Pittsburgh
GD-19-005308
FPC case
Firearm Policy Coalition vs City of Pittsburgh
GD 19-005330