AP Photo/Alex Brandon, File
While it seems the district attorney isn’t willing to file any criminal charges against Pittsburgh Mayor Bill Peduto nor any of his cronies on the city council, it doesn’t mean smooth sailing for the anti-gun officials. There are still lawsuits for the city to deal with.
Unfortunately for the people of Pittsburgh, lawsuits take time. How many lives stand to be ruined and how many people’s rights will be directly infringed upon in the meantime?
Luckily, the National Rifle Association is looking to take care of that little problem.
The National Rifle Association took another step Wednesday against Pittsburgh’s new gun-control laws by filing a motion to render them ineffective during a pending lawsuit against the city.
The organization’s Institute for Legislative Action is supporting four plaintiffs, who are city residents, in suing the city for banning from public places any weapons loaded with what the NRA says are “standard” capacity magazines — more than 10 rounds of ammunition. The organization and the residents take issue with the city’s definition of “large capacity magazines.”
The NRA initially helped to file the lawsuit, Anderson v. City of Pittsburgh, in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas on April 9, the day Mayor Bill Peduto signed a package of three gun-control bills into law. Wednesday they added a request for a preliminary injunction.
“Violent criminals will not abide by Pittsburgh’s ban on loading standard-capacity magazines,” Chris W. Cox, executive director of NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action, said in a news release. “The only people who this irrational ordinance would disarm are law-abiding Pittsburgh residents.”
Despite that, city councilman Corey O’Connor claims that they knew the lawsuits were coming–which is probably true. They’re anti-gun and deluded on the effectiveness of gun control, but not blind–and they’re ready to fight.
He then added this little bit:
“We knew that challenges were going to come up, we knew they were going to file for different injunctions, but we’re willing to fight,” Mr. O’Connor said Wednesday. “I would say to [the NRA] they have every right to do that, but if they don’t think that there’s a problem with gun control in this country, then they need to look in the mirror. As opposed to always fighting, come to the table and come up with an idea that will help protect our residents.”
The National Rifle Association is a gun rights organization. Its job, the job its members pay it to do, is to protect gun rights. Its role in American politics isn’t to come up with answers. Those are what politicians are elected for. Its job is to make sure those answers don’t infringe on the rights of ordinary Americans.
That said, the NRA does provide answers. The gun rights crowd has provided answers.
People like O’Connor dismiss them out of hand even though they tend to make sense. How would the Tree of Life Synagogue shooting have happened had there been armed people in the congregation? People like O’Connor dismiss that question out of hand, but I want an answer. I want to know what would have happened.
Yes, for us the answers often involve more guns, but that’s because a gun is the most effective way of stopping a maniac with a gun. You don’t get to live in a fantasy world where guns aren’t a factor. We’re all stuck living in this one.
The NRA is filing for an injunction because people like O’Connor willfully broke state law by passing a local gun control law. What makes him think a criminal–people who routinely break laws–will somehow comply? Didn’t he and his buddies break the law themselves?
With luck, the injunction will be granted so that no one’s lives are ruined by this insanity prior to the law being struck down.