Pittsburgh argues it has legal authority to regulate use of firearms - TribLIVE

serongyu.blogspot.com

Pittsburgh contends that an Allegheny County judge erred when he ruled that three controversial gun ordinances were illegal.

In briefs filed with Pennsylvania’s Commonwealth Court, the city argued that the ordinances sidestepped Pennsylvania’s superseding law prohibiting municipalities from regulating the ownership, possession, transfer and transportation of firearms.

“Public health research is on our side, Pittsburgh residents are on our side, and the law is on our side, too,” Mayor Bill Peduto said Monday. “It’s disappointing our efforts have had to come to this, but we’ll continue to show the court that our measures comply with every word of state law.”

In response to the 2018 killings of 11 people at the Tree of Life Synagogue in Squirrel Hill, Pittsburgh City Council last year approved three gun bills that Peduto signed into law.

One would ban the use of certain semiautomatic weapons, including assault rifles. A second would ban the use of ammunition and accessories, such as large capacity magazines capable of holding 10 rounds or more of ammunition. A third bill, dubbed “extreme risk protection,” would permit courts to temporarily remove guns from a person deemed to be a public threat.

The city argued that it has legal authority under the Home Rule Charter and state law to regulate the discharge of guns and use of certain accessories within its borders.

“It narrowly crafted and limited the operative portions of the ordinance only to prohibit the “use” of large capacity magazines and only in public places, except for in cases of lawful self-defense or hunting,” attorneys wrote in the briefs. “Residents may still carry or transport firearms fitted with large capacity magazines in public and they may use them in their homes or other private places.”

The city contends that Common Pleas Judge Joseph James erred in his five-page opinion granting three Second Amendment rights groups and three individuals a summary judgment that declared the ordinances illegal.

Joshua Prince, an attorney with Berks County-based Civil Rights Defense Firm, which represented the plaintiffs, said Pittsburgh is spending taxpayer money on a “frivolous appeal regarding its illegal ordinances.” He reiterated a call for Allegheny County District Attorney Stephen A. Zappala Jr. to file charges of official oppression against Peduto and members of council.

“The example that this sets for our youth — that it is acceptable to violate the law if you do not agree with it, instead of petitioning to have the law changed — is a stark reminder that the City and its elected officials believe they are above the law,” he said.

The city is represented by its Law Department and at no cost by attorneys from Everytown for Gun Safety, an organization that advocates against gun violence.

City officials for more than a decade have attempted to regulate firearms in response to gun violence, but their efforts have been stymied by the state preemption law. Officials believe the current ordinances can pass court review because they do not include an outright ban on firearms.

Second Amendment advocates contend the ordinances violate state law and the Pennsylvania and U.S. constitutions.

Bob Bauder is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Bob at 412-564-3080, bbauder@triblive.com or via Twitter .

Categories: Local | Allegheny | Top Stories