By: Teresa Mull
The Pennsylvania legislature, fresh off the heels of passing Constitutional Carry (which Gov. Tom Wolf vetoed, of course), is at it again with more pro-gun legislation moving forward in the Senate.
SB 448, introduced by Prime Sponsor Wayne Langerholc, R-Clearfield, would enable citizens to sue “a municipality for enacting firearm regulations more restrictive than existing state law,” reports the Pennsylvania Capital-Star.
A similar bill was just passed by the New Hampshire House of Representatives and is on its way for a full vote on the Senate floor.
New Hampshire’s version of the preemption bill – which has a much better chance of becoming law than Pennsylvania’s – would establish “uniform firearms laws in the state” by mandating towns immediately rescind any local ordinances or regulations on firearms that go beyond state law.
If the town did not remove the regulation after 90 days, the person who alerted the town to its overreach would then able to take the issue to the New Hampshire Superior Court. The bill effectively grants the person automatic standing.
In NH, the court could then issue a fine ranging from $500 to $5,000 to the town caught violating state law. If the person pursuing legal action against the town is a resident, the court will then reward him or her $10,000 in liquidated damages, on top of their legal fees.
Regarding Pennsylvania’s proposed law, Val Finnell, Pennsylvania Director of Gun Owners of America told WSKG, “We just want the illegal ordinances to stop, and the only way to do that is there has to be some sort of financial repercussion to the cities and the municipalities or the counties to stop enacting illegal ordinances.”
In similar news, GPM reported this week that two California counties’ orders to close guns and ammo stores and shooting ranges during the COVID outbreak (deeming them “nonessential”) were ruled unconstitutional by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
More on that here.
Teresa Mull (firstname.lastname@example.org) is editor of Gunpowder Magazine.