PA Bill Number: HB829
Title: In preliminary provisions, further providing for definitions;
Description: An Act amending the act of April 12, 1951 (P.L.90, No.21), known as the Liquor Code, in preliminary provisions, further providing for definitions;
Last Action: Signed in House
Last Action Date: Jul 3, 2024
Pittsburgh officials plan to appeal court's gun ordinance ruling :: 10/31/2019
Pittsburgh Mayor Bill Peduto said Wednesday that he considered the city’s first court challenge on a package of controversial gun ordinances akin to a “preseason in sports.” He and other city officials said they figured the city would lose.
Allegheny County Common Pleas Judge Joseph James a day earlier struck down the ordinances, ruling they were illegal because state law prohibits municipalities from regulating firearms.
Pittsburgh officials said they intend to appeal the ruling in Pennsylvania’s Commonwealth Court.
“I’ve said from the very beginning, no matter what the outcome was with Common Pleas, either side was going to appeal, and I believe this gets appealed all the way to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court,” the mayor said. “We basically looked at the early rounds of court decisions as almost like the preseason in sports.”
The main sponsors of the ordinances — council members Corey O’Connor of Swisshelm Park and Erika Strassburger of Squirrel Hill — also said they expected the decision.
“This is just a hurdle in a long fight to pass common-sense gun laws. By no means is this the end,” Strassburger said. “As I’ve said before: This will be the fight of my career.”
O’Connor said his only surprise was that the judge failed to consider the intent of the bills.
City Council in April amended legislation that originally contained an outright ban of certain guns and accessories.
Council enacted the ordinances following last year’s mass shooting that killed 11 people at Tree of Life synagogue in Squirrel Hill.
The amendments included a ban on the use of certain semiautomatic weapons, including assault rifles, ammunition and accessories. A separate bill dubbed “extreme risk protection” would permit courts to temporarily remove guns from a person deemed to be a public threat.
The legislation stipulated that a ban on the possession of assault rifles would kick in only if the state or federal governments enacted a ban.
“It was just a very broad view, as opposed to going through every bill after we changed them,” O’Connor said.
Second Amendment rights organizations and several local residents sued, challenging the ordinances under the state preemption law.
Peduto said the city has no intention of banning guns. He said he didn’t care how many guns a person owns, so long as they don’t shoot them or carry them loaded in public.
“This has nothing to do with the U.S. Constitution or Second Amendment,” he said. “It’s regarding the preemption laws and whether or not the state’s preemption laws should be able to discourage local governments from doing what they believe is necessary to protect their citizens.”
Bob Bauder is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Bob at 412-765-2312, bbauder@tribweb.com or via Twitter
