Law

The Big Easy becomes one of the last major American cities to pass a sweeping smoking ban

The New Orleans City Council unanimously passed a ban on smoking in bars and gambling halls on Thursday.

The law will take effect in about three months, the Associated Press reports. While owners of bars and casinos expressed concerns that the ban would hurt business, city officials decided the health of musicians and others exposed to secondhand smoke while working in those establishments is paramount.

New Orleans, a major tourism hub known for its nightlife, is one of the last major American cities to allow people to smoke in bars. Logan Gaskill, a lawyer for a large casino next to the French Quarter, estimated at the meeting that revenues would decline 20% as a result from the ban, the AP reports.

But lawmakers were convinced by a teary speech from Councilman James Gray II, who read off the names of people he knew who died from lung-cancer. Another member, Jason Williams, said they had an obligation to protect “the heart and soul” of New Orleans, the musicians and barroom workers.

[AP]

People who stand should "expect regular significant quarrels with housemates, especially women"

A German court ruled on Thursday that men who pee while standing aren’t responsible for the potential consequences on the bathroom floor.

The Düsseldorf court ruled in favor of a tenant after his landlord tried to withhold part of a security deposit because of stains on the marble bathroom floor allegedly caused by urine, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung reports.

“Despite growing domestication of men in this matter,” Judge Stefan Hank said, urinating while standing up is still widespread.” Still, he added, people who stand should “expect regular significant quarrels with housemates, especially women.”

[Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung]

The lobby group has set its sights on Philadelphia, Pittsburgh and Lancaster for passing firearms ordinances against in violation of state law

Armed with a new state law that opponents denounce as a gift to the gun lobby, pro-gun groups are rapidly scaling up their attack on municipal firearms ordinances throughout Pennsylvania, with the National Rifle Association filing suit over gun-control measures in three cities.

Philadelphia, Pittsburgh and Lancaster have “openly defied” a 40-year-old state law that forbids municipalities from regulating firearms, said Chris Cox, executive director of the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action.

The cities said they will fight the NRA, contending the local regulations are a sensible way to address deadly gun violence.

“This should be a wake-up call for citizens across Pennsylvania,” Pittsburgh Mayor Bill Peduto said. “We’re not taking away anyone’s right to own a gun — or 10 or 20 guns. What we’re saying is when a gun is lost or stolen, you’ve got to report it. Too many people are being killed in the streets of Pittsburgh and other cities with stolen guns.”

Pennsylvania has long barred its municipalities from approving ordinances that regulate the ownership, possession, transfer or transportation of guns or ammunition. But scores of cities and towns ignored the prohibition, and gun-rights groups complained the local measures were difficult to challenge because judges have ruled that plaintiffs could not prove harm.

Under a state law that took effect last week, gun owners no longer have to show they have been harmed by an ordinance to win in court. The new law also allows organizations like the NRA to sue, and successful challengers can seek legal fees and other costs.

Philadelphia, Pittsburgh and Lancaster are fighting the new law in court, arguing lawmakers didn’t follow constitutional procedure for passing legislation.

“It is unconstitutional, it never should have been passed, and it breaks with more than 200 years of history in Pennsylvania, by allowing organizations without standing the ability to sue,” Peduto said.

Under threat of litigation from several smaller gun-rights groups, more than 20 Pennsylvania municipalities already have moved to repeal their firearms ordinances instead of defending them in court. Another group, Houston-based U.S. Law Shield, sued the capital of Harrisburg on Tuesday over its gun laws.

The NRA suit filed Wednesday against Philadelphia targets seven ordinances, including ones that require owners to report lost or stolen firearms; prohibit guns from city-owned facilities; and ban weapons possession by people subject to protection-from-abuse orders or who are found to pose a risk of “imminent harm” to themselves or others.

Philadelphia officials have long said its measures are needed to combat gun violence that claims hundreds of lives each year. In 2010, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court tossed city ordinances that limited people to buying one gun a month and banned assault weapons, but the NRA — deemed to lack standing — lost its bid to get other city gun laws thrown out.

If the city’s bid to overturn the new state law is successful, “then the NRA would not have standing to file the suits that it has filed today,” said Mark McDonald, spokesman for Mayor Michael Nutter.

In the small city of Lancaster, meanwhile, the NRA is challenging an ordinance that requires gun owners to tell police when a firearm is lost or stolen.

Lancaster Mayor Rick Gray, one of the named defendants, denounced the NRA lawsuit as “pathetic” and said the city’s attorney had determined its ordinance could withstand legal scrutiny.

“The NRA is a New York-organized corporation that is based in Virginia and they are suing us in Lancaster because we are asking people to report stolen firearms,” he said. “I have a difficult time getting my arms around that.”

Cox, the NRA official, said local laws “do not make people safer” and, in a statement, accused officials of “politically grandstanding at taxpayers’ expense.”

The NRA plans to go after other municipalities whose gun ordinances are barred by state law, said the group’s attorney, Jonathan Goldstein.

“We expect every municipality to repeal ordinances that are pre-empted. If other folks don’t get on board with what the law requires, they can expect to hear from us in due course,” he said.

It's the first time the FAA has given drone permits to companies in these two industries

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) issued Tuesday its first-ever drone permits for use in the agriculture and real estate sectors.

Exemptions to the ban on commercial drones were made for Advanced Aviation Solutions in Spokane, Wash., for “crop scouting,” and to Douglas Trudeau of Tierra Antigua Realty in Tucson, Ariz., for enhanced aerial footage of buildings, according to an FAA statement.

Advanced Aviation Solutions will use a 1.5-pound eBee drone to take photographs of farm fields for measurement and inspection purposes, while Trudeau will use a Phantom 2 Vision+ quadcopter to “enhance academic community awareness and augment real estate listing videos,” the FAA said.

Among other rules, the permits require commercial drones to have an on-the-ground “pilot” and an observer, and that the drone must not leave the operator’s line of sight.

Previously, the FAA had granted drone permits to 11 companies in filmmaking, oil and gas and landfill industries, according to the Associated Press. Congress has pressured the FAA for years to establish guidelines permitting commercial drone use, and has mandated the agency to integrate drones into U.S. airspace by September 2015.

Ruling has no immediate impact

A federal judge ruled Tuesday that President Barack Obama’s recent executive actions to protect millions of undocumented immigrants from deportation is unconstitutional.

Judge Arthur Schwab of the Western District of Pennsylvania found the actions violated the constitution’s separation of powers, Reuters reports. The ruling has no immediate impact but will give fodder to Republican lawmakers, who have criticized Obama as overstepping his authority.

Schwab had been addressing a case regarding a Honduran immigrant, Elionardo Juarez-Escobar, who pleaded guilty to re-entry in the U.S. He said he ruled on Obama’s actions because he believed Juarez-Escobar was eligible for relief under the policy.

A Justice Department spokesperson said Tuesday that Schwab’s ruling was “unfounded” and incorrect.

“No party in the case challenged the constitutionality of the immigration-related executive actions and the department’s filing made it clear that the executive actions did not apply to the criminal matter before the court,” the spokesperson said. “Moreover, the court’s analysis of the legality of the executive actions is flatly wrong. We will respond to the court’s decision at the appropriate time.”