Avery Hamill’s jacket with a message on gun violence at the Moms Demand Action rally on gun safety Monday, May 22, 2023, at the Pennsylvania Capitol. (Capital-Star photo by DaniRae Renno)
Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court upheld the state laws that prevent municipalities from enacting their own laws to regulate firearms, saying in a unanimous decision Wednesday that the city of Philadelphia and advocates against gun violence failed to show the laws are unconstitutional.
The ruling ends a lawsuit by Philadelphia, anti-gun violence group CeaseFirePA and Black and Hispanic residents of Philadelphia and Pittsburgh who have been directly impacted by the deaths of family members and others by gunfire. It named as defendants the former Republican speaker and majority leaders in the General Assembly. Current Republican leaders in the Senate and leaders in the now-Democratic majority in the House have been substituted as defendants.
The lawsuit challenged the constitutionality of Pennsylvania’s 50-year-old firearms preemption laws which give the General Assembly sole authority to regulate the sale, possession and use of guns throughout Pennsylvania.
“There is also no doubt that a serious problem exists in this Commonwealth relative to gun violence and its impacts on our citizenry,” Justice Kevin Brobson wrote in the court’s 55-page opinion.
Brobson said that municipalities and their residents may justifiably believe that the state is not doing enough to remedy the problem and that local laws are needed but preempted by the state, the adequacy or wisdom of the legislature’s response is not the court’s to determine.
Adam Garber, executive director of CeaseFirePA, said gun violence remains the leading cause of death among Black men and youth in Pennsylvania. The plaintiffs are deeply disappointed in the Supreme Court’s decision to leave municipalities unable to enforce proven policies to save the lives of their residents.
Garber urged the court to consider other pathways to provide local governments with the ability to prevent gun violence, such as Philadelphia’s enforcement of a law requiring gun owners to report lost and stolen firearms within 24 hours.
“It is clear the Pennsylvania General Assembly’s refusal to act and tying the hands of local officials has exacerbated this public health crisis. It’s past time for the General Assembly to change course, before more lives are lost,” Garber said.
House Judiciary Chairperson Tim Briggs (D-Montgomery) called on fellow lawmakers to take action.
“We respect the court’s authority to decide this question and now it’s up to the legislature to keep up the fight and once again advance real gun violence prevention and safety measures supported by a vast majority of Pennsylvanians and deliver results meeting constitutional muster,” Briggs said in a statement.
Senate President Pro Tempore Kim Ward (R-Westmoreland) said in a statement that the ruling reaffirms the legislature’s exclusive authority over gun regulations.
First enacted in 1974, the preemption provision of Pennsylvania’s Uniform Firearms Act has been expanded several times over the decades to make it more encompassing of firearms regulation. In 2013, the General Assembly, then controlled by Republicans, amended it again to allow any person adversely affected by a local gun control law to sue.
As a result, many municipalities repealed their local gun ordinances while some, including Harrisburg, Lancaster, Pittsburgh and Philadelphia decided to keep their firearm ordinances in place, 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 the state’s actions increase the danger to residents. They also argued that the law infringes upon those constitutional rights without a valid reason or due process of law. And the city of Philadelphia argued that the preemption law interferes with its duties to administer public health laws.
Upholding an earlier decision by the Commonwealth Court, the Supreme Court found the plaintiffs had failed to state a claim that the court could decide. Decisions about how to cope with problems facing the commonwealth are solely for the legislature to determine, the opinion states. .
“Upon their province we must not encroach,” Brobson wrote. “Stated another way, there is nothing for us to do in the absence of a constitutional violation or other infirmity in the [preemption laws]”
YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE.