Pa. State law vs Phila. City law and The Message to Mayor Nutter’s Independence by Van Stone

Pa. State law vs Phila. City law and The Message to Mayor Nutter's Independence by Van Stone vspfoundation@yahoo.com (215) 747-8746


Above: Mayor Nutter, City Council, and Police Commissioner Ramsey, presumed innocent loose cannons, display how state law and facing possible law suits should not be more important than facing gun laws that help children to be safer in Philadelphia. Mayor Nutter and City Council members believe that their behavior shows that the signed five new gun-control laws means that their city governance stand of independence will not collapse even if this means running a city with groups: a collapsible Philadelphia Office of District Attorney and Philadelphia Office of Pa. House of Representatives who will not support the Nutter' and city council's new handgun laws.

Mayor Mike Nutter, Philadelphia, PA, might have wanted numerous peopled to now view the city-state status as a realistic possibility primary unit of city affairs. And he might want his own citizens of Philadelphia to believe that only the state of PA may choose to voluntarily enter gun laws passed into Philly communities under state constitutional law is a myth. And that Philadelphia City Council and their Mayor, and their Police Commissioner have the right to follow their own counsel when it comes to interpretation of their commitments to passing safe gun laws in Philadelphia is not a myth. The most recent PA state law vs. Philly city law dealing with Mayor Nutter signing several new gun laws mandated for citizens, visiting or non-visiting, to obey has kick- started a long needed pre-independence act by Philly government from the PA state.

Certain State Rep.’s like Rep. J. Perzel and District Attorney leaders like L. Abraham, feel that these modern developments endanger states by taking power away from state governments and ceding it to city bodies such as the Philadelphia City Council and Mayor Nutter. But Mayor Nutter, with support of certain strong Philly Justices and State Rep’s like Rep D. Evans, argue that city law has evolved to a point where it exists separately from the mere consent of states. And the Mayor elect and both City Council and State Rep. elect, by the Philadelphia citizens, discern a legislative and judicial process to state law that parallels such processes within its cities children’s law. And this right to pass its own gun laws especially occurs when states violate or deviate from the expected standards of conduct adhered to by all civilized cities. In other words according Nutter’s view, and mine, civilized cities do not allow criminals to think that crime does pay.

The group of opponents of Nutter and I point of view, including many political powers, maintain that all civilized cities have certain norms of conduct expected of them, to obey the Pa. state, no matter the sufferings. And that violation of these PA state norms represents a crime, not only against the political leadership, but also against humanity as a whole. But my message here to Mayor Nutter and city council is the rules of this PA state gun law game do not admit of shoving your opponent. But shoved Pa. state has.

So, since Philadelphia governess recognizes those crimes is -not including the prohibition of genocide, slavery and the slave trade, illegal gun wars of aggression against children, torture of communities, and gun piracy in your city, no local authority elected by Philly citizens should speak out against the Mayor. And violation of these universal norms represents a crime, not only against the individual victims, but also against humanity as a whole. States and individuals that subscribe to this view opine that, in the case of the individual responsible for violation of city gun law, he/she is become, like the pirate and the slave trader before the state. Being concerned about gun criminals right’s being violated is an enemy of all city government, and thus subject to prosecution in a fair trial before any criminal court judge, through the exercise of city jurisdiction. Philadelphia groups should believe as one that cities only commit to PA state gun law with express consent, when state voting authority and state courts quickly pass gun laws agreeably to Mayoralty and city council in the capital of Philadelphia. Lock up gun law violators.

Philadelphia should be supported having the right to make their own interpretations of its gun law meaning; and that state courts only function shouldn’t be with the consent of state’s gun laws. The state should recognize city gun laws in relation to criminal acts against children. All 5 newly passed Philadelphia gun laws are needed in relation to the real issue of handguns endangering children’s rights and safety.

Mayor Nutter should often insist on non-interference in Philly internal affairs, particularly regarding human rights standards or their particular handgun laws, but often use force disarming obligations and the terms of the state when children are dying at an alarming high rate in homes and the streets. Although considerable differences exist amongst states as to their policies and practices regarding city law, most states have very high regard for any kind of city gun law, either in principle, or in practice. But, except when it comes to the personal political interest behavior state Pa. gun laws that protect certain elected officials own territory and sovereignties indeed most gravely breaches city gun law needs. Mayor Nutter’s independence may prove that Philly can be a state itself.