Pittsburgh International Airport
Alaska resident David Ross' flight into Pittsburgh Airport for a short visit to the Keystone State last July 1st was uneventful - until, that is, he was arrested for retrieving his sidearm from checked baggage and holstering up on the way out of the airport.
Mr. Ross told the Examiner.com that he tried to explain to Magistrate Judge Anthony Saveikis that Allegheny County's ordinance banning gun carry at the airport was "preempted by Section 6120 of the Pennsylvania Uniform Firearms Act," but Saveikis found him guilty anyway. Ross then hired Pennsylvania attorney J. Michael McCormick to appeal his conviction to the court of common pleas.
After Mr. McCormick filed this briefing with the court, the District Attorney's office for Allegheny County conceded that the County's ordinance was not legally enforceable. As a result, Judge Robert C. Gallo entered a judgment of "not guilty" in the case according to court records.
John Pierce, co-founder of OpenCarry.org maintains a map of state by state airport gun carry laws and says that Pennsylvania is "just like most states" which allow gun carry in the non-sterile areas of airports just like they do in shopping malls, parks, and most other public venues. But what irks gun rights organizers the most about this case is that public officials should already know that state law preempts local gun bans because the Pennsylvania Supreme Court settled that issue a decade ago in Ortiz v. Commonwealth.
"This should never have been an issue to begin with," said Rich Banks, founder of PAOpenCarry.org, a Pennsylvania gun rights group, referring to open carry at the airport which requires no license in Pennsylvania and most states. Banks contends that Pennsylvania public officials too often "treat guns like they are an 'exception' to the rule of law" and that the Allegheny County Council should now move quickly to repeal what Banks said is "an illegal gun ban ordinance."
Comments
Mr. Ross should sue the Magistrate Judge Saveikis pursuant to 18 USC Section 241 (maybe 242 also). This is the law that preempts authorities "immunity" when they knowingly (or "should have known in their official capacity as a judge") violate a citizen's civil rights. I'm no lawyer but I'd definitely ask one to look into this.
I'm with Paladin. Or at least sue the county for time, expenses, etc. That is nothing more than legal harassment on the part of the judge and their should be some remedy that will make him think twice next time.
Paladin +1
I would also look into filing legal complaints with the state bar to get him dis-barred for flagrantly disregarding state law, his state bar rules and regulations and his oath of office, even when it was pointed out to him what the law was.
If he is dis-barred, he can no longer serve on the bench.
No-one is above the law.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!