The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has upheld state laws that prevent municipalities from enacting their own firearms regulations, finding in a unanimous decision Wednesday that the city of Philadelphia and gun violence advocates have not shown that the laws are unconstitutional.
The ruling ends a lawsuit filed by Philadelphia, the anti-gun violence group CeaseFirePA, and Black and Latino residents of Philadelphia and Pittsburgh who were directly affected by the deaths of family members and others as a result of the shooting. He named a former Republican Party speaker and majority leaders in the General Assembly as defendants. The current leaders of the Republican Party in the Senate and the leaders of the current Democratic majority in the House of Representatives have been replaced as defendants.
The lawsuit challenges the constitutionality of Pennsylvania’s 50-year-old firearms buyback law, which gives the General Assembly the exclusive authority to regulate the sale, possession and operate of guns throughout Pennsylvania.
“There is also no doubt that there is a serious problem in the Commonwealth with gun violence and its impact on our citizens,” Justice Kevin Brobson wrote in the court’s 55-page opinion.
Brobson said that municipalities and their residents may reasonably believe that the state is not doing enough to address the problem and that local regulations are needed, but the state is getting ahead of them and the adequacy or wisdom of the Legislature’s response is not for the courts to decide.
Adam Garber, executive director of CeaseFirePA, said gun violence remains the leading cause of death among Black men and youth in Pennsylvania. Plaintiffs are deeply disappointed by the Supreme Court’s decision preventing municipalities from enforcing proven policies that save the lives of their residents.
Garber urged the court to consider other ways to give local governments the ability to prevent gun violence, such as enforcing a Philadelphia law requiring gun owners to report lost and stolen firearms within 24 hours.
“It is clear that the Pennsylvania General Assembly’s refusal to act and tying the hands of local officials has exacerbated the public health crisis. It is time for the General Assembly to change course before more people die,” Garber said.
House Judiciary Chairman Tim Briggs (D-Montgomery) called on other lawmakers to take action.
“We respect the court’s authority to decide this issue, and it is now up to the Legislature to continue the fight and re-enact real gun violence prevention and safety measures supported by the vast majority of Pennsylvanians and ensure results that are consistent with constitutional requirements,” Briggs said in statement.
Senate President pro tempore Kim Ward (R-Westmoreland) said in a statement that the ruling affirms the Legislature’s exclusive authority over gun laws.
First enacted in 1974, the preemption provisions of Pennsylvania’s Uniform Firearms Act have been expanded several times over the decades to include greater coverage of firearms laws. In 2013, the General Assembly, then controlled by Republicans, amended it again to allow anyone adversely affected by local gun control laws to file a lawsuit.
As a result, many municipalities repealed their local gun ordinances, and some, including Harrisburg, Lancaster, Pittsburgh and Philadelphia, chose to maintain their firearms ordinances, knowing they would have to defend them in court.
The plaintiffs in the case decided Wednesday argued that the preemption law violates their constitutional rights to life, liberty, property and happiness under the legal doctrine that state actions boost the threat to residents. They also argued that the bill violated these constitutional rights without good cause or due process of law. The City of Philadelphia argued that the preemption law interfered with its obligations to administer public health laws.
Upholding an earlier Commonwealth Court ruling, the Supreme Court found that the plaintiffs had not presented a claim that the court could decide. The opinion states that decisions on how to deal with the problems facing the community rest solely with the legislator. .
“We cannot enter their province,” Brobson wrote. “Put differently, we cannot do anything unless there has been a violation of the constitution or some other defect in the state [preemption laws]”
YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE.
