Firearm Dealers-plank-bob

O'Connor
==Bob O'Connor, as City Council President, moved to put limits on gun dealers.==
===City of Pittsburgh Regulates the location of Firearms Dealerships and the Pennsylvania House of Representatives House Judiciary Committee Takes Notice===
====Absent of any authority under state law, the City of Pittsburgh passes ordinance to regulate where firearm dealerships are allowed to be located in a storefront business. ====
According to the Pittsburgh Post Gazette, Pittsburgh City Council passed an ordinance prohibiting the location of a firearms dealership in neighborhood shopping districts like Carson Street in the South Side or East Ohio Street in the North Side. Such an attempt to regulate a lawful activity is a blain ant violation of section 6120 of the Pennsylvania Uniform Firearms Act, which reads; 
6120. Limitation on Municipal Regulation of Firearms and Ammunition.
(a) General rule. "No county, municipality or township may in any manner regulate the lawful ownership, possession, transfer or transportation of firearms, ammunition or ammunition components when carried or transported for purposes not prohibited by the laws of this Commonwealth. 
You could collectively refer to Bob O'Connor and Tom Murphy as the 'Bob and Tom Show' when you are with a younger audience like college students. Bob and Tom are two irreverent morning disc jockeys who are syndicated in many parts of the country, including Pgh.
This would be more entertaining than enlightening, but it would give a speech or a conversation a little color.
While it is clear that the ordinance is in violation of state law, the ACSL choose not to enter into this debate because of the clear advantage that the anti-gunner have on the Pittsburgh City Council. The only option available to the ACSL to stop this ordinance, and to overturn the existing ordinance, is to file a law suit. It is clear, judging by the rhetoric coming from city councilman Bob O'Connor, that they are attempting to bait us into filing a law suit. Such a law suit would be costly, even if we won, would be just a feel good move because we know of no one who is attempting to open a gun dealership in the City of Pittsburgh, and the ordinance will not effect any dealership that is currently located within the zones outlined in the ordinance. 
This history behind this ordinance goes back to July of 1994 when it was first introduced by City Councilman Bob O'Connor. At that time O'Connor's plan was directed at home sales of firearms. Gun selling would be permitted in business establishment in commercial districts, as they already were. Gun shops would be kept 500 feet from other gun dealer, houses of worship, schools, playgrounds, recreation centers and drug or alcohol rehabilitation centers. Licensed gun sellers would be required to obtain a license from the city (in addition to the present state and federal license). 
O'connor base his ordinance on un-supported arguments that somehow persons who sold guns from their homes where somehow doing so illegally. He completely ignored the fact that such dealers were required to obtain a state and federal license, and all transactions must be in compliance with state and federal law. O'Connor never provided any documented evidence that such sales were being conducted in violation of any state and federal law. The news media latched on to his term of kitchen â€“table gun sellers, a term that gave the impression that something illegal was occurring. O'Connor new he would have the media's support for passage of this ill conceived legislation, and he was correct. 
A hearing was scheduled, and the ACSL was the only pro-gun organization to testify against the ordinance relying on the state preemption of local legislation as evidence that the ordinance was illegal under state law. No gun dealers requested to testify, but the anti-gunner were there in force. The hearing was scheduled for July 28, 1994, scheduled to testify against the ordinance was Michael J. Slavonic, Jr., Chairman of the Legislative of the Allegheny County Sportsmen's League. Scheduled to testify in favor of the bill were 14 people lead by Zita Glasgow and Kenny Steinberg of Pennsylvanian's Against Handgun Violence. 
Prior to the public hearing the city Planning Commission also held hearings on the O'Connor ordinance weeks before. Testifying before the Planning Commission was Lt. Phillip Dacey, who at the time was head of the city's Gun Task Force and a licensed gun dealer. According to a June 16, 1994 Post Gazette article by Michael A. Fuoco, titled, Head of gun task force may be moved from position, the Post Gazette report that "Dacey, testified before the city Planning Commission hearing that O'Connor's bill would 'serve no law enforcement [or] public safety concern'". In that same article Dacy reiterated that his testimony reflected the position of the Public Safety Department, not solely his personal opinion. Nevertheless Dacy's testimony was viewed as controversial and he upset O'Connor. 
The article when on to report that after hearing of Dacey's testimony O'Connor said yesterday that he had nothing to do with the backlash against Dacey, although he admitted he had considered putting political pressure on the Police Bureau to remove Dacey from the gun task force. Never mind that O'Connor never provided proof that out of home gun sale by licensed dealers was a problem, and he wasn't require to provide proof to support his ordinance, but Dacey was. That he never provided proof of his allegation that these home dealers were storing large quantities of firearms in their homes, his credibility was never brought into question. 
Does anyone question why the Pennsylvania's Chief's of Police Association is anti-gun? 
In our testimony before City Council, we provided them with undisputed facts, based on testimony by Stephen E. Higgins, Director of the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms before the Subcommittee on Federal Service, Post Office and Civil Service of the Committee on Governmental Affairs on March 26, 1993, that home firearms dealer did not present the problem O'Connor claimed they did. Mr. Higgins testified, giving a basic overview of the BAFT's firearms compliance program for federally licensed firearms dealers. According to Mr. Higgins, more than 72% of the federally licensed dealers have their businesses located in their homes. Nearly one-third of all licensees have no inventory of firearms and have not bought or sold any firearms in a 12 month period. Of the remaining two “thirds, a majority (60%) have conducted a minimal amount of business (less than 10 transactions). Facts that Bob O'Connor was never able to dispute. 
In addition we showed that the ordinance was illegal under the stateâ€™s preemption act. Relying on a 1974 Attorney General's Opinion to the then Executive Director of the Game Commission Glenn L. Bowers, Pennsylvania Attorney General Israel Packel wrote Opinion No. 17 that said;
"1. Municipalities generally have the right to pass ordinances dealing with ownership and possession of guns except that municipalities incorporated under the Home Rule Charter and Optional Plan Law, 52 P.S. s 1-11 et seq. can in no way restrict the transfer, ownership, transportation or possession of firearms."
(The City of Pittsburgh is a Home Rule Charter and Optional Plan municipality)
In spite of our overwhelming evidence against the ordinance, Bob O'Connor got his wish, and Pittsburgh City Council enacted the ordinance. 
That was Bob O'Connor then, but what about Bob O'Connor now? 
The same Councilman Bob O'Connor, who introduced the first gun dealer ban in 1994, and wanted to have the city join Philadelphia to sue gun manufacturers in 2000, is now singing a different tune. This time around Mr. O'Connor voted against stiffing-up the ordinance he authored in 1994. He sided with the only pro-gun member of City Council, Jim Ferlo, and as the Post-Gazette reported, said that the new ordinance â€œcould drive away business and offend the National Rifle Association.
Offend the National Rifle Associationâ€?? When was Bob O'Connor ever concerned about offending the National Rife Association? 
Mr. O'Connor was also quoted as saying "Let's not restrict [gun dealers] so much, so people go to Homestead or Robinson Township to buy their hunting equipment. I don't want the NRA calling and saying, ˜why don't you favor gun sales? Now we have the real reason why Mr. O'Connor has a new found concern for what NRA members think about anti-gun legislation. It's the tax dollars, stupid. 
What an in creditable turn about, now when the city is starving for new businesses Mr. O'Connor is a friend of the NRA. Or, is Mr. O'Connor now realize that gun owners spend a lot of money on outdoors equipment and by prohibiting and outdoors store like Gander Mountain from locating in the City, Mr. O'Connor is loosing property tax money. 
One of the areas of the city where any new gun dealership would be prohibited is the South Side of Pittsburgh. This is one area of the City which has been experiencing tremendous growth. A article in the July 7, 2002, Post-Gazette titled, How the SOUTH SIDE got its groove back examined how this growth happen. A chart in the article showed the demographics of the South Side. In that chart, shown below, the City of Pittsburgh approved the creation of 28 bars and 41 Restaurants with liquor licenses approved by the City, but not one gun dealership. But now Bob O'Connor want to change that problem. It appears that there are no outdoors stores, who also sell firearms, locating in the City. This is a loss of tax revenue for the city, and we have a different problem for the City.
The City of Pittsburgh doesn't mind gun dealerships in the City just as long as no one can see them. But they have no problem with the increasing number of bars in the city. 
Researchers have agreed that alcohol in moderation is not a problem. However, the abuse of alcohol is a problem, and the prevention of alcohol is a serious problem in the United States. 
Over twenty percent of all traffic fatalities in the United State each year are caused by drunk drivers. Young people are over-represented in driving accidents involving alcohol. In a recent year, people aged 16 to 24 were involved in 28 percent of all alcohol-related driving accidents, although they make up only 14% of the U.S. population. Young people are also over-represented in drinking driver injuries and deaths. Even when their blood alcohol contents (BACs) are not high, young drinkers are involved in driving accidents at higher rates than older drivers with similar BACs. 
As shown in the chart below the great majority of the population of those visiting the South Side are those between the ages of 20-44.
With these well known statistics readily available Pittsburgh City Council has absolutely no problem allowing these establishments to flourish in the City. 
A firearms dealership can not be located on the South Side even though it would probably be closed during the time period that the bar crowd would be in high swing, and, never mind that it is illegal to sell a firearm to anyone who is under the influence of alcohol. 
Never mind that a recent federal study found that most guns recovered from a crime scene are more than three years old. 
However, now comes the state of Pennsylvania into the controversy. On July 3, 2002 the ACSL received a phone call from the office of the chief counsel of the House Judiciary Committee. It appears that several members of the House have been inquiring as to the legality of the Pittsburgh ordinance.
When the Judiciary Committee receives a reasonable number of inquiries on matters of law, which is the responsibility of that committee, the committee begins a process of conducing an investigation. He House Judiciary Committee staff has begun that process. The ACSL was ask if we would cooperate with the Judiciary Committee in their investigation of the Pittsburgh ordinance and of coarse we agreed. This does not mean that an investigation will continue and hearings will be held, but the possibility exists.
hen the Judiciary Committee receives a reasonable number of inquiries on matters of law, which is the responsibility of that committee, the committee begins a process of conducing an investigation. He House Judiciary Committee staff has begun that process. The ACSL was ask if we would cooperate with the Judiciary Committee in their investigation of the Pittsburgh ordinance and of coarse we agreed. This does not mean that an investigation will continue and hearings will be held, but the possibility exists.