Friday’s hearing was on a motion filed by the city to dismiss the suit, which argued that the state law cited by the statue’s supporters was only amended to include cities in 1997 and isn’t worded in a way that makes it apply to statues erected before then.

Deputy City Attorney Lisa Robertson argued that if legislators had intended the amendment to be retroactive, they would have specified as much — something she said is required when the state takes rights away from a locality that it was previously afforded.

The defendants argued that the wording is ambiguous and it’s “common sense” that it was intended to apply to all war memorials.

“The General Assembly did not mean to exclude monuments erected before 1998 (when the law went into force),” argued Ralph Main, the lawyer representing the Confederate heritage groups.

He noted the litany of protected war memorials specifically cited in the code — a long list that includes now-obscure conflicts spanning from the American Revolution and the Civil War to the war on terrorism.

“How many people are erecting monuments these days to the Algonquin War? … If you apply common sense, it clearly applies to all monuments in existence at the time the law was passed.”