City of Philadelphia vs Freedom
Thne NRA and the City of Philadelphia are fighting in court over Philadelphia’s new (anti) gun laws. Pennsylvania has a preemption law, which basically makes gun laws a state issue rather than a local issue. There are plenty of people who support gun control who have said the city has no leg to stand on - state law is clear.
But I was more interested in comments made by the city’s attorney, Richard Feder.
The NRA presented no evidence that these weapons have any civilized purpose whatsoever in our society.
No civilized purpose whatsoever? Really? So, self-defense and recreational shooting are not civilized purposes? Furthermore, where in the constitution is the civilized purpose clause? why would the NRA need to present such evidence to begin with? I must have missed that part. In fact, we keep firearms in this country to help maintain a civilized life rather than be butchered at the whim of a thug.
Feder also said the laws would impose only “minimal, incidental imposition” on the rights of lawful gun owners. First of all, one of the laws being challenged is an assault weapons ban. That’s not a “minimal, incidental imposition”. It’s a ban. Second, why would a “minimal, incidental” violation of a basic civil right be acceptable anyway?
Imagine the outcry if the city wanted to, say, require a license to engage in free speech. It’s just a “minimal, incidental imposition” to file a form and pay a fee before doing so. No big deal, right?