ShareThis Page
DA: Peduto, Pittsburgh leaders can’t yet be charged over gun bills | TribLIVE.com
Allegheny

DA: Peduto, Pittsburgh leaders can’t yet be charged over gun bills

Bob Bauder

Pittsburgh must first cite someone for violating the city’s gun legislation before the Allegheny County District Attorney’s Office will consider private criminal complaints alleging Mayor Bill Peduto and six City Council members broke state law by passing the controversial bills, an official from the district attorney’s office said.

Seven city residents and several others attempted Friday to file charges in Pittsburgh Municipal Court against Peduto and the council members, but were turned away by Mike Manko, spokesman for District Attorney Stephen A. Zappala Jr.

Manko noted that the three gun ordinances approved by council and signed on Wednesday by Peduto have yet to go into effect.

“What we’re saying is if somebody does get cited, at that time we will consider a private criminal complaint,” he told the group.

Second Amendment supporters contend the bills violate the U.S. and Pennsylvania constitutions and a state law prohibiting municipalities from regulating firearms. They contend Peduto and council violated the state law by passing the bills and are guilty of misdemeanor counts including criminal contempt, solicitation, conspiracy and official oppression.

Pittsburgh faces three lawsuits filed by the National Rifle Association, Firearm Owners Against Crime and the Allegheny County Sportsmen’s League seeking a court injunction to quash the legislation and to have Peduto and the council members held in contempt of court.

The legislation consists of three bills. One would ban the possession and use of certain semi-automatic weapons, including assault rifles. A second would ban ammunition and accessories, such as large- capacity magazines. A third bill, dubbed “extreme risk protection,” would permit courts to temporarily remove guns from a person deemed to be a public threat and impose penalties on an adult who allows a child to access a gun illegally.

They take effect in 60 days.

City residents who currently own guns and accessories outlined in the bills would be grandfathered.

Violators would face a civil penalty that carries a $1,000 fine for each offense. The bills original contained a possible penalty of 90 days in jail but that was stricken by an amendment.

“They’re going to force me to fall on a sword to move this forward?” said Anthony Golembiewski, 63, of Lawrenceville. “It’s very obvious to all of us city residents that the mayor broke the law the day he signed that document, stood up and said, ‘This is law.’ The state preemption says clearly he’s not allowed to do this. Why is the DA kicking this down the road past Election Day?”

Zappala, who is seeking re-election, faces a Democratic challenger in the May primary election. Manko said the politics played no part in the DA’s refusal to accept the complaints.

“If it’s 60 days, 180 days — whatever it takes — we will be back,” said Val Finnell, 50, of Kennedy, an outspoken critic of the bills.

Finnell attempted in January to file complaints against Peduto and council before the gun bills were approved, but the DA’s Office said then there was insufficient evidence that a crime had been committed.

“Now the DA’s moved the goal posts, and he’s actually expecting someone to actually violate the law and stick their neck out and suffer personal consequences in order to challenge this,” he said.

Bob Bauder is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Bob at 412-765-2312, bbauder@tribweb.com or via Twitter .

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.