Pittsburgh mayor won’t be charged for passing gun laws after synagogue shooting

Prosecutor rejects criminal complaints over firearms controls after shooting at Tree of Life, but says they could be considered later on ‘if somebody is aggrieved by the law’

PITTSBURGH, Pennsylvania (AP) — A prosecutor refused to approve criminal charges Friday against Pittsburgh’s mayor and six City Council members over the passage of firearms restrictions that gun rights advocates say are blatant and deliberate violations of state law.

Seven city residents tried to file private criminal complaints against Democratic Mayor Bill Peduto, who signed the legislation into law this week, and council members who voted to approve the bills. The complaints charge the mayor and council with official oppression and other counts.

Pennsylvania law allows citizens to file criminal charges, subject to approval by the district attorney. The office of Democratic Allegheny County District Attorney Stephen Zappala Jr. refused to accept the residents’ complaints Friday, saying prosecutors would not weigh criminal charges against the mayor and council until the new gun laws begin to take effect in about two months and someone is cited for violating them.


https://www.timesofisrael.com/pittsburgh-mayor-wont-be-charged-for-passing-gun-laws-after-synagogue-shooting/

The love of guns over life.

The acts of governmental officials in their capacity as legislators, is privileged Constitutionally. It's like a judge who rules on a point of law and cannot be held.

This has a good side and a bad side, but there it is.

Looks to me that those seven Pittsburgh residents are the true criminals in this case...

The pure gall of those 7 c*nts, trying to bring charges against their council, mainly on the basis that those councillors had the courage to put the safety and welfare of the majority of residents ahead of the selfish "rights" of a few homicidal amd sociopathic turds..

Hopefully the  State will put the names of those 7 whining snowflake gun lobby shills on a terrorism watch list, as potential 'enemies of the state'  ?

the point is, and I think this is what Quill is alluding to, those laws were passed in despite of the statutory laws of the state which has prior authority. the council is in effect acting ultra vires that is to say outside of its powers and area of "presumed competence" whilst likely not illegal per se, such actions are "unlawful" and therefor the laws do not stand scrutiny. the problem isnt so much the actual law made, as the presumtion that the council has the power to introduce arbitrary laws whicxh stand in contradiction to state law. IF such an action was to be found acceptable it opens the door to ANYONE being able to make their own laws randomly and freely, since it challenges the precept that in order to make laws you need lawful competency, which power can only, in the end derive from the state and above that the ruling parliament in its broadest sense.