Pennsylvania Supreme Court Overturns Local Gun Control Measures

Another victory for gun rights. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has ruled that the state’s preemption laws on firearms are constitutional and prohibit local governments from violating the right to bear arms.

 

Pennsylvania’s current preemption laws prevent local governments from enacting gun control measures that are more restrictive than those imposed at the state level. This ruling will ensure uniformity in gun control laws. It is less likely for an individual to be put into legal danger due to confusion over local restrictions.

 

This ruling was made after the appeals court rejected the initial challenge to the law. “The General Assembly’s authority over municipalities is supreme…municipalities may do only those things which the legislature has expressly or by necessary implication permitted,” Justice Kevin Brobson wrote in his opinion.

 

The court argued the state constitution does not “prohibit the right to bear weapons from being questioned in certain parts of the Commonwealth while abridged in other areas” and that “regulation of firearms is an issue of statewide importance.”

 

The court accepted the argument that local regulations tailored to each community could help address unique challenges of public safety in urban areas. The court ruled that the “need for uniformity” in gun regulations outweighed the local interest in enacting specific laws for their community.

 

The appellants claimed that preemption laws create a state-sponsored threat by making it more difficult for local governments to combat violent crime. The court, however, countered that argument by stating, “Preemption laws don’t mandate or encourage violence.”

 

 

Multiple city governments filed the original lawsuit in 2020.

 

On Wednesday, Mayor Jim Kenney plans to announce that he and other city officials will file a lawsuit in Pennsylvania to challenge the city’s inability to pass its gun control laws.

 

The legal action, which will be discussed in an afternoon press conference in Germantown by local leaders, is the latest attempt to reverse a concept called preemption that prohibits local governments from passing gun laws.

 

The city is also experiencing its most violent year in more than a decade. According to police statistics, through Tuesday, 366 people had been killed this year, the majority of them fatally shot. More than 1,600 others were injured in shootings.

 

In a statement, city officials stated that the lawsuit will be filed by residents “whose lives were profoundly affected by gun violence” and that it will argue that the current status quo is “handcuffing local governments to the point that they are unable to enact simple policies that have been proven effective at saving lives.”

 

This was a good decision, even though I am sure that I disagree with most of Pennsylvania’s gun legislation. Normally, I would prefer the state to leave local governments alone so they can pass their laws. When it comes to protecting a constitutionally protected right, higher levels of government should intervene. It means that fewer people face charges of unconstitutional gun possession for simply possessing the means necessary to defend themselves.

 

It is also curious that the argument that Pennsylvania’s preemption laws will somehow encourage gun violence. I think that making it more difficult for law-abiding people to buy and carry firearms will only encourage violent criminals to target the public. This logic is lost on anti-gunners, who think that citizens should only rely on the government for their safety and property.