PA Bill Number: SB945
Title: Consolidating the act of August 9, 1955 (P.L.323, No.130), known as The County Code; and making repeals.
Description: Consolidating the act of August 9, 1955 (P.L.323, No.130), known as The County Code; and making repeals. ...
Last Action: Third consideration and final passage (199-0)
Last Action Date: Apr 17, 2024
Council members seek 'legal path' for Pittsburgh's proposed gun laws :: 03/20/2019
“Unique” amendments provide a “legal path forward” for three controversial gun-control bills proposed in Pittsburgh City Council, according to the legislation’s two prime sponsors.
Instead of barring possession of certain firearms, council is now targeting the “use” of assault-style weapons.
Foes of the bills, though, said Wednesday that the amendments do little more than dilute council’s intent while still running afoul of state law.
The proposed ordinances originally aimed to ban certain assault-style weapons and accessories within city limits, and to allow the courts to remove firearms from those who pose an “extreme risk” to themselves or others.
Critics and gun-rights advocates, though, have threatened lawsuits, rallied on the steps of city hall — openly and legally carrying firearms — and spoke for hours at a public hearing in opposition to the bills, often noting that state law preempts local regulation of firearms.
“There is a [state] prohibition against cities like Pittsburgh regulating the possession and transport and other things that have to do with guns,” Councilwoman Erika Strassburger said. “What the state law doesn’t address is use [of the weapons]. … We are seeking to pass a bill that would prohibit the use of firearms and certain accessories within the city in a public place.”
Ms. Strassburger, along with Councilman Corey O’Connor and Mayor Bill Peduto’s office, introduced the gun-control bills in December, just seven weeks after a gunman killed 11 at a synagogue in Squirrel Hill.
Four members in addition to Ms. Strassburger and Mr. O’Connor voted Wednesday to tentatively approve the amendments. Council members Darlene Harris and Theresa Kail-Smith, whose names are not on the bills, abstained from voting for the amendments, concerned that the city could be sued for passing such ordinances. Councilwoman Deb Gross was absent.
According to the amendments, “use” could include loading or attempting to discharge any of the weapons outlined in the proposed bills, as well as a number of other actions. Weapons and accessories listed in the proposals include 37 types of semi-automatic weapons, metal-penetrating ammunition, large capacity magazines, accessories designed to accelerate the rate of fire, and others.
“Let’s say you are walking outside our building and you have a loaded weapon, depending on which one, that would then be not allowed,” under the amended bills Mr. O’Connor said. “If you leave your house and you load a weapon and put it in your car, again that would be not allowed.”
The restrictions on use of firearms would not apply in any private residence or any “duly established site” for the sale of, or training on, firearms, the amendments read.
A 1993 city ordinance already prohibits the discharge of “any firearm or air gun anywhere within the city, except under proper supervision at duly established target ranges.”
The bills still include a ban at the local level on the weapons or accessories, but with the amendments that would be contingent on action at the state level or in the courts. If the state General Assembly or Supreme Court passed a law or handed down a decision allowing local regulation of citizens’ possession of certain weapons, the city’s proposed ordinances would go into effect 60 days after such a decision. The amendments call on the General Assembly to give municipalities the power to regulate guns.
“It’s different than an outright ban, and they may still end up in litigation about it. But I think they’re trying to do something that’s practical and effective rather than do something that would be immediately enjoined” in court, said Shira Goodman, executive director of the gun-control advocacy group CeaseFire PA. “They’re trying to do what they can given the current state of the law and the way cities are constrained.”
Ms. Strassburger said council “listened to a lot of different people, a lot of voices over the past several months that have informed these changes.” Despite that, the amendments are not assuaging critics.
Opponents who have been vocal against gun-control attempts in Pittsburgh and other Pennsylvania municipalities called council’s latest amendments “flights of fancy” and a “watered-down version” of proposals that would still clash with state law.
“They’re proposing all of this, but nothing they’re proposing is doing anything to stop crime in America,” said Kim Stolfer, president of Firearms Owners Against Crime, a gun-rights advocacy group that formed shortly after council’s efforts at gun-control in the 1990s.
“If you want to do something because of what happened at the synagogue, attacking the rights of law abiding citizens is not the way to go. Understanding what happened at the synagogue is the way to address the problem,” he said, noting mental health and security concerns.
The third proposed gun-control law being debated in council would allow extreme risk protection orders, issued by courts, to remove weapons from those who pose an extreme risk to themselves or others. That proposal remains intact, but an amendment would establish penalties for firearm owners if a minor gained access to their guns, with a number of exemptions including permission from the minor’s parent or guardian.
A fourth proposed ordinance — the STOP the Violence initiative introduced by councilmen the Rev. Ricky Burgess and R. Daniel Lavelle in December and targeting group violence — has been attached to the gun-control package.
Members voted to hold the bills until next week, when a preliminary vote is expected.
Mr. O’Connor maintains that the amendments strengthen the measures.
“We’re actually really pushing the envelope,” he said. “To the critics who said ‘look you can’t do anything,’ OK, we heard your complaint. ... We acknowledged it and made the bill stronger for our argument at the state level in the state courts if we go that route.”
Ashley Murray: 412-263-1750, amurray@post-gazette.com or on Twitter at @Ashley__Murray
