Pittsburgh City Council approves controversial gun ban | TribLIVE.com

Pittsburgh City Council approves controversial gun ban

Bob Bauder
Kristina Serafini | Tribune-Review
Dennis Jordan of Pittsburgh’s Lincoln Place neighborhood speaks out against proposed gun legislation during a Pittsburgh City Council meeting on Tuesday, April 2, 2019. Council passed an assault rifle ban by a vote of 6-3.
Kristina Serafini | Tribune-Review
Jenna Paulat of the North Hills (left) and Wynona Harper of Penn Hills, members of the Pittsburgh chapter of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, cheer Pittsburgh City Council’s vote on Tuesday.
Kristina Serafini | Tribune-Review
Jenna Paulat of the North Hills, a member of the Pennsylvania chapter of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, sits inside council chambers prior to the Pittsburgh City Council meeting on Tuesday, April 2, 2019. Council passed an assault rifle ban by a vote of 6-3.
Kristina Serafini | Tribune-Review
Jenna Paulat of the North Hills (from left), Wynona Harper of Penn Hills and Judy Caric of the South Side, members of the Pennsylvania chapter of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, cheer as Pittsburgh City Council passes an assault rifle ban in council chambers on Tuesday, April 2, 2019.

Pittsburgh City Council on Tuesday voted to approve a package of controversial bills aimed at banning certain weapons in the city and keeping guns out of the hands of people deemed public threats.

Council voted 6-3 to send the bills to the desk of Mayor Bill Peduto, who said he would sign them. The mayor said he would schedule a date for signing and invite city council members and organizations that supported the legislation to attend.

Opponents said the legislation violates a state law prohibiting municipalities from regulating firearms and have threatened to sue the city and file private criminal complaints against council members and the mayor.

“We’re happy to take a stand,” said Councilman Corey O’Connor of Swisshelm Park, one of the main sponsors of the legislation. “It’s going to be a difficult battle, but we’re willing to fight it.”

The legislation consists of three bills. One would ban possession and use of certain semiautomatic 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.

City residents who currently own guns and accessories outlined in the bills would be grandfathered, O’Connor said. Violators would face a civil penalty that carries a $1,000 fine, or up to 90 days in prison, for each offense.

Supporters said they were willing to accept the potential cost of defending the legislation if it can reduce gun violence that has plagued the city and America. Peduto has said attorneys have promised to represent the city for free. He has not named those attorneys.

“Even it there was a cost to taxpayers, which there won’t be, but even if there was, the cost of this bill saving one life, just one life, is worth more than the money that would be spent,” Peduto said. “Anybody who would put the value of that money over that one life does not value life.”

Val Finnell, 50, of Kennedy, an outspoken critic, said he and others are prepared to file criminal complaints against Peduto and the six council members who passed the legislation as soon as the mayor signs it.

“If he signs between today and Friday, we’ll be there Friday,” Finnell said.

Peduto said he expects the challenge.

“I think as you look around this country and around this world, legislative bodies are challenging the validity of preemption laws and laws that would put elected officials through a criminal process for taking on the gun manufacturing lobby,” he said, adding that state and federal officials have done nothing to address the situation. “We’ve seen what doing nothing has done. It has led to an escalation of severe mass murders and we’re going to take action on a local level.”

Council members Darlene Harris of Spring Hill, Theresa Kail-Smith of Westwood and Anthony Coghill of Beechview voted against the bills, citing among other things cost of litigation and the state law that prohibits municipalities from regulating firearms.

Kail-Smith suggested council could have approved a resolution asking the state to pass stiffer firearms regulations. She also said the bills would disproportionately impact minority neighborhoods where shootings occur.

Harris noted that council in 1993 passed a ban on assault rifles that state courts overturned. She predicted the same thing would happen with the current legislation.

“All this is going to bring us is lawsuits,” she said.

O’Connor said he feels Pittsburgh has a good chance of a favorable court ruling.

“We have new people on certain (state) courts that weren’t there in 1993, and, since 1993, I’d ask how many mass shootings and just regular gun violence you just see in the streets almost on a daily basis have occurred,” he said. “I think people are starting to change their minds and be more open to some form of gun control.”

Anti-gun organizations, including CeaseFirePA and Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, lauded the city for approving the legislation.

“This has been a long time coming,” said Rob Conroy, CeaseFirePA’s director of organizing. “We have bodies dropping every single day in all sorts of neighborhoods within the city limits, and we’ve had a hate crime in October, which was not even the first mass shooting that Pittsburgh has had, where 11 people were shot for having the temerity to actually attend services on a Saturday morning. If that doesn’t move someone to do something, I don’t know what does.”

He was referring to shootings at Tree of Life synagogue in Squirrel Hill on Oct. 27. The mass shooting prompted council to propose the gun regulations.

Bob Bauder is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Bob at 412-564-3080, [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.