Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court rules against Pittsburgh gun regulations

The Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court on Friday reaffirmed a lower court’s ruling in striking down Pittsburgh gun regulations.

The ruling applies to three separate gun cases that were on appeal with the Commonwealth Court, including two that were filed in response to the Oct. 27, 2018, shooting at the Tree of Life synagogue in Squirrel Hill that killed 11 congregants.

In response to that attack, Pittsburgh City Council passed three firearms ordinances in April 2019.

The ordinances prohibited the use of large-capacity magazines and assault weapons in public places, punished negligent gun owners if their firearm storage practices led to a minor causing harm with a gun and gave permission to either law enforcement or family members to seek court intervention if they believed a person was a danger to themselves or others.

Firearms Owners Against Crime filed suit against the city the day former Mayor Bill Peduto signed the bills into law, arguing that the Uniform Firearms Act prohibited council from implementing any firearms restrictions.

The city disagreed, saying that state law only prohibited municipalities from gun regulation in four areas: ownership, possession, transfer and transportation. The city’s attorneys argued that the ordinances were outside of those categories.

Allegheny County Common Pleas Judge Joseph James disagreed, granting a motion for summary judgement against the city. He found that the state Uniform Firearms Act preempts any local ordinance on guns.

In its decision, the Commonwealth Court agreed with James and struck down the city’s gun ordinance in its entirety. The court cited a section of the Uniform Firearms Act that reads, “No county, municipality or township may in any manner regulate the lawful ownership, possession, transfer or transportation of firearms, ammunition or ammunition components when carried or transported for purposes not prohibited by the laws of this Commonwealth.”

Judge Ellen Ceisler, in her opinion, wrote that she did “largely concur” with her colleagues in the majority, but still dissented in part.

“I believe that the scope of preemption in the field of firearms regulation has been defined by our courts in an unjustifiably broad manner,” Ceisler wrote.

Pittsburgh Mayor Ed Gainey on Friday afternoon said the city intends to appeal “this dangerous decision to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, so that local officials across Pennsylvania can do our jobs and keep our constituents safe.”

“Our city took action after the horrendous, antisemitic massacre at the Tree of Life synagogue, and the ordinances we passed can save lives,” he said in a statement. “Despite a devastating spike in gun violence throughout the commonwealth and the nation, the Pennsylvania General Assembly has not acted to make our communities safer.”

Councilwoman Erika Strassburger highlighted Tuesday’s deadly mass shooting in a Uvalde, Texas, elementary school and another recent mass shooting in Buffalo as examples of why she believed the ordinances should be permitted to go into effect.

“While I’m disappointed with the Commonwealth Court’s ruling, I remain confident that upon appeal, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court will recognize the city’s authority to protect its residents from gun violence,” Strassburger said.

“We are disappointed by the Commonwealth Court’s decision, but encouraged that three of seven judges have called on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to ‘overturn or rein in’ a number of wrongheaded decisions that have needlessly handcuffed local elected officials from taking desperately needed steps to address the gun violence epidemic in Pennsylvania’s cities,” said Eric Tirschwell, executive director of Everytown Law, a group of litigators that works to advance gun violence prevention in courts.

A message left for Firearms Owners Against Crime was not immediately returned.