Guns Everywhere! It’s Mass Hysteria!

So the Post-Gazette says:

We would be the first to concede that the gun provisions are legally dubious, given that in this case — regrettably — state law would seem to preempt anything Pittsburgh might enact. Empowering the police to be mind readers of intent is also troublesome. City Council should tread warily when these proposals are discussed in chambers tomorrow and a sunset provision would be reasonable.

So it’s questionably legal, but the Post-Gazette will support it anyway, because police can’t be mind readers.  I guess that means they can’t be expected to delineate between peaceful and non-peaceful protesters too, so we might as well just tear gas them all!

I can understand Pittsburgh’s concerns about the G-20.  These meetings attract all manner of violent, idiotic people.  But I what I’ve failed to understand is what the City Council is trying to accomplish with this ban.  Either someone is engaging in riotous behavior, or they aren’t.  Police are legally permitted to use deadly force against rioters under Pennsylvania law, and I would certainly agree that use of deadly force against rioting protesters with guns would be justified.  I’m just not sure what extra power the City of Pittsburgh thinks this will give them that they don’t already have.  Protesting peacefully is lawful.   Rioting behavior is unlawful.  If there’s people planning to riot at the G-20 with guns, I’m not sure they are going to care all that much that the City of Pittsburgh says you can only riot as long as you’re not carrying 67 models of firearms.