PA Bill Number: HB1661
Title: Further providing for schedules of controlled substances; and providing for secure storage of xylazine.
Description: Further providing for schedules of controlled substances; and providing for secure storage of xylazine. ...
Last Action: Act No. 17 of 2024
Last Action Date: May 15, 2024
PA Preemption - Bethlehem Council members face criminal complaints if gun ordinance remains :: 02/18/2015
BETHLEHEM, Pa. - Members of Bethlehem City Council are being warned that private criminal complaints will be filed against them if they don’t vote in favor of doing away with “unlawful” city firearms laws.
That’s in addition to a civil lawsuit that will be filed against the city if it does not promptly come into compliance with a new state law that requires local municipalities to revoke many of their firearms ordinances.
The warnings were delivered in person to City Council Tuesday night by Tom Campione of Hellertown, who introduced himself as legislative affairs director for Pennsylvanians for Self-Protection, which he calls “a Second Amendment group.”
“If there is any doubt as to the seriousness of this matter or our resolve to bring the city of Bethlehem into compliance with state law, I suggest you look no further than the city of Harrisburg, which has both civil and criminal complaints filed against it and each of its individual council members,” Campione told council.
After the meeting, Bethlehem officials indicated the city will be fully in compliance with the new state law, Act 192, before the end of March.
Council completed removing one of its local gun laws Tuesday night.
With no explanation about exactly what it was acting on, and no discussion, council unanimously voted to eliminate a requirement that people must pay $2 a year for a permit to carry a firearm in the city.
Campione has been making the rounds, issuing similar public ultimatums to municipal leaders all over the Lehigh Valley. He also is vice chairman of the Lehigh Valley Tea Party.
“We haven’t hit Macungie yet, but that’s coming,” said Campione after Tuesday night’s meeting. “Whitehall’s coming.” He also indicated he’ll be going back to Emmaus.
Act 192 allows individuals and organizations to sue municipalities if they have gun laws that are stricter than Pennsylvania’s laws.
The specific ordinance Campione’s organization wants removed in Bethlehem is 941.05C. “I’m here to urge you to repeal that ordinance in its entirety,” he told council.
Campione read part of a Feb. 10 letter to City Council from Atty. Joshua Prince, who represents Pennsylvanians for Self Protection and other organizations.
Prince warned if the city does not immediately repeal Section 941.05C, “my clients have authorized me to file suit against the city of Bethlehem, as well to file private criminal complaints against each City Council member that votes to take any action other than to repeal these unlawful ordinances.”
If the city does not comply, Prince even threatened to have U.S. Marshals serve his lawsuit on the city and that Bethlehem would have to pay for the cost of those marshals.
Campione later explained Act 192 gives any organization that has a member living in a municipality the legal right to sue that municipality, even if that organization has not been harmed by a municipal firearms law.
If a municipality is sued and loses, he added, it is required to pay the legal fees of the suing organization.
“The city has no authority to dictate guns or no guns,” said Campione. “They’ve actually been in violation for a couple of decades.”
“As firearms are defined under the [state] crimes code, we don’t regulate them anymore,” said Atty. William Leeson, Bethlehem’s solicitor, after the meeting, “except with respect to the discharge of firearms, which is entirely separate and not subject to the limitations under Act 192.”
Tuesday was the second time this month that Campione addressed Bethlehem City Council about its weapon ordinances.
On Feb. 3, he first warned council that his organization had reviewed an amended version of 94.015C and “it appears that it fails to comply with current state law. We’re requesting that council review that ordinance and come into compliance.”
Campione said that ordinance continues to regulate firearms usage, “then claims at the end that it does not. The claim does not negate the fact that it does regulate firearms usage.”
Although Leeson said Campion’s group has many of its facts wrong and “is making threats under legally incorrect assumptions,” the solicitor has advised City Council that regulations involving the discharge of firearms in Bethlehem “should be written more precisely.”
Specifically, that Feb. 10 memo from Leeson recommends deleting provisions in Article 941.05 regarding the discharge of firearms and replacing them with a “more comprehensive new Article 725.”
A proposed ordinance to make those changes will be placed on the March 3 City Council agenda for first reading, said council president J. William Reynolds, with final action scheduled for March 17.
Atty. Jack Spirk, council’s solicitor, said March 17 should be the last vote on the final “cleaning up” of city firearms ordinance issues. He added: “The city has been moving in the direction of trying to get it right.”
On Nov. 18, said city resident Frank Baran, City Council adopted a resolution that left the 94.015C ordinance intact, but added a caveat recognizing that Act 192 supersedes its ordinance.
“This was an appropriate action on the part of council,” maintained Baran, because it left open that possibility that the city’s ordinance would be “revived” if Act 192 should be overturned by the courts.
“Now I see City Council is going to go further with a significant revision to the original language,” said Baran. “I do not support that new language but I understand council’s predicament here.”
Resident suggests city take action
Baran suggested City Council doesn’t have to just roll over and accept Act 192.
He encouraged council to file a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of Lancaster, Philadelphia, Harrisburg and Pittsburgh — cities he said already are challenging Act 192 in court.
“City Council can stand up and let the courts know that our city believes Act 192 is wrong and should be overturned,” said the resident.
Baran said he’s not a lawyer but maintained filing such a friend-of-the-court brief would create no legal liability for the city, because it would not be a gun ordinance precluded under Act 192.
“It’s merely an expression of City Council’s opinion,” he said. “Act 192 is not a gag order.”
After the meeting, the city solicitor said Bethlehem has not considered filing a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of other Pennsylvania cities challenging Act 192.
Leeson said Bethlehem Mayor Robert Donchez already filed such a brief, but in support of an organization, another city. He did not recall the name of that organization.
Feb. 3 was first vote on eliminating permits
City Council took an initial vote to do away with the $2 permit to carry firearms in the city at its Feb. 3 meeting.
“It’s the right move to vote this way to keep the city out of potential litigation,” said Reynolds that night.
“But it is one I’m going to do with regret. It’s a situation in which we will have to live to fight another day.”
“We’re trying to keep the city out of trouble,” explained Leeson at that meeting.
The solicitor told council: “Some municipalities are organized to challenge the recent legislation. We can await the results, and depending on the results, the city can re-enact ordinances maybe somewhere down the line.
“In the meantime, we’ll let those cities carry the ball and hopefully we save the city litigation fees and await the outcome.”
Said Reynolds: “I certainly agree with that strategy. It’s unfortunate that this is a power that’s able to be legislated away from cities.”
Guns in parks and playgrounds
Baran, the only other person besides Campione to address council about the issue Tuesday, objected to doing away with city ordinances that prohibit carrying firearms in city parks and playgrounds.
The city resident said ordinance 941.05 has been on the books for years. “It prohibits the carrying or discharging of any dangerous weapon, including guns, in city parks.”
Baran noted the intent of Act 192 is to override any municipal ordinance dealing with the regulation of guns.
“I’m concerned about having gun owners romping around city parks, exhibiting their weapons in front of the public,” said Baran.
He asked council if people walking on city trails would “feel comfortable seeing people with guns, possibly assault weapons, walking the trails with them.
“This would create a chilling effect for people who use these parks. They’d have no way of knowing whether the guy with the openly visible gun was an honest man or a criminal.
“Bethlehem already is one of the safest cities in Pennsylvania. It doesn’t need a bunch of aspiring militiamen trying to do something that the city police already accomplish successfully.”
Other businessAlso during Tuesday night’s meeting:
* Council unanimously appointed Michael Recchiuti as its new vice president with no discussion. Recchiuti, the only council member nominated, replaces Karen Dolan, who resigned Nov. 1.
* Reynolds announced a special City Council meeting has been scheduled for 8 p.m. Monday in Town Hall to appoint a new city controller. The person appointed will complete the term of Controller David DiGiacinto, who died Jan 25.
* The inter-municipal transfer of a liquor license to Rudy’s Diner, Bar & Grill at 1402-1412 Center St. unanimously was approved by council. The license is from the former Galley restaurant off Route 33 in Wind Gap. Several council members commended Rudy’s, which opened Jan. 14, as an improvement to that area and wished its owners success. Rudy’s once was known as Collins Restaurant.
