Snowflakes in Hell


Firearms Policy and Politics in Pennsylvania

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette Encourages Law Breaking

author Posted by:Sebastian on date Dec 18th, 2008 | filed Filed under: Gun Rights, Pennsylvania

They are taking the Mayor of Pittsburgh to task because he won’t sign an illegal law:

For all the mayor’s good words to council, that statement to state lawmakers would have been stronger if the city’s highest elected official had affixed his signature to it. That would have been real leadership.

Is real leadership being demonstrated by Philadelphia?  A city that’s running out money to such a degree that they are closing fire stations and cutting back on other essential services, but yet has the money to fight for worthless gun control measures in Pennsylvania’s courts with almost no chance of prevailing?  That’s the kind of leadership you want to see out of Pittsburgh?  I think Mayor Ravenstahl has demonstrated leadership, which the Post-Gazette wouldn’t apparently recognized if they were slapped in the face with it.

Post to Twitter Post to Digg Post to Facebook Post to StumbleUpon

Related posts (automatically generated):

  1. Pittsburgh’s Illegal Gun Law to go into Effect Soon
  2. Bloomberg Throwing Down
  3. Pittsburgh Flouting Preemption

tag4 Responses to “Pittsburgh Post-Gazette Encourages Law Breaking”

  1. Jake Said,
    December 18th, 2008 at 12:06 pm

    Real leadership would have been for him to veto the law (if he can) because it’s illegal.

  2. SayUncle » Law-abiding Said,
    December 19th, 2008 at 8:32 am

    [...] A Pittsburgh paper encourages law-breaking. [...]

  3. mike w. Said,
    December 21st, 2008 at 12:30 pm

    hmmm, so they encourage breaking the law in order to pass a law that they expect criminals to abide by?

    Yeah, no flawed logic there….

  4. EgregiousCharles Said,
    December 21st, 2008 at 11:23 pm

    Jake, the way a veto is enacted in the case of this or a Presidential veto is by the executive (the Mayor or President) refusing to sign the legislation; the executive signature is normally required to pass a bill into law or ordinance. Refusing to sign IS the veto.

    In this Pittsburgh case the bill was passed with a veto-proof majority, meaning it does not require a signature to become an enforceable ordinance. However, the Pittsburgh city council like the Philadelphia one has no power to pass such ordinances (being specifically restrained from doing so by state law) so it’s all basically moot posing.

    Unless they find some asinine wannabe jack booted thug, stick a badge on him, and get him to violate his oath by attempting to enforce this mere opinion in defiance or ignorance of the law.