Judge strikes down Pittsburgh’s controversial gun bills | TribLIVE.com
Allegheny

Judge strikes down Pittsburgh’s controversial gun bills

Bob Bauder
1873612_web1_PTR-GunbillSigned01-041019
Tribune-Review
Pittsburgh Mayor Bill Peduto signs multiple gun ordinances during a signing ceremony inside the City-County Building on April 9, 2019.

An Allegheny County judge Tuesday struck down Pittsburgh’s controversial gun control ordinances, ruling the city is prohibited by state law from regulating firearms.

Common Pleas Judge Joseph James issued a five-page opinion granting three Second Amendment rights groups and three individuals a summary judgment that declared the ordinances illegal.

The city vowed to appeal.

Pittsburgh City Council in April approved three bills signed by Mayor Bill Peduto. One would ban possession and use of certain semiautomatic weapons, including assault rifles. A second would ban the use of ammunition and accessories, such as large capacity magazines capable of holding 10 rounds or more of ammunition. A third bill, dubbed “extreme risk protection,” would permit courts to temporarily remove guns from a person deemed to be a public threat.

“The city and its outside legal counsel have always expected this would be a long legal fight and will continue to fight for the right to take common sense steps to prevent future gun violence,” said Peduto spokesman Tim McNulty.

Three organizations — Firearm Owners Against Crime, Firearm Policy Coalition Inc. and Firearm Policy Foundation — along with Matthew Boardley, Saadyah Averick and Fred Rak, sued seeking to overturn the ordinances.

James ruled that state law preempted the bills.

“Despite the city’s efforts to avoid the specific preemption set forth in the (act) they are not able to avoid the obvious intent of the Legislature to preempt this entire field,” he wrote.

Josh Prince, an attorney with Berks County-based Civil Rights Defense Firm, which represented the plaintiffs, said his clients were prepared to pursue the case “as far as necessary.”

“We’re very pleased with the decision rendered by Judge James, and we’ll wait to see if the city will appeal,” he said.

“I believe all the organizations and plaintiffs involved are prepared to take it as far as necessary to ensure that their rights are not violated.”

Pittsburgh, which is being represented at no charge by attorneys from Everytown for Gun Safety, an organization that advocates against gun violence, along with its Law Department, agreed in May to postpone enforcement of the ordinances until the court cases are resolved.

Bob Bauder is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Bob at 412-765-2312, [email protected] 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.