Pittsburgh’s controversial gun legislation passes first hurdle | TribLIVE.com

Pittsburgh’s controversial gun legislation passes first hurdle

Bob Bauder
Pittsburgh City Council gave initial approval Wednesday, March 27, 2019, to gun-control legislation introduced in wake of the 2018 synagogue massacre, an effort certain to be challenged in court by Second Amendment advocates who point out that state law doesn’t allow municipalities to regulate firearms. The legislation would place restrictions on military-style assault weapons, like the AR-15 rifle that authorities say was used in the Oct. 27 rampage at Tree of Life Synagogue that killed 11 and wounded seven.
Protesters, many armed, gathered Monday, Jan. 7, 2019, outside Pittsburgh’s City-County Building to rally against proposed gun restrictions in the city.
Black Political Empowerment Project (B-PEP) chairman Tim Stevens, right, addresses a Pittsburgh City Council meeting in support of tentative gun-control legislation before the council voted 6-3 to pass to pass it, Wednesday, March 27, 2019, in Pittsburgh. The bill was introduced in the wake of the synagogue massacre last October. The legislation would place restrictions on military-style assault weapons like the AR-15 rifle that authorities say was used in the attack that killed 11 and wounded seven. A final vote will take place next week.
The agenda for the Pittsburgh City Council meeting is in front of council members, from left, Anthony Coghill, Deborah Gross, Robert Daniel Lavelle, Corey O’Connor, Darlene Harris and Theresa Smith as the council discusses a vote on gun-control legisation, Wednesday, March 27, 2019, in Pittsburgh.
Pittsburgh City Council member Darlene Harris, left, speaks on a vote on gun-control legislation as fellow council members Corey O’Connor, right, and Theresa Smith, center, have a discussion, during a City Council meeting, Wednesday, March 27, 2019, in Pittsburgh.

Pittsburgh’s controversial gun ban passed its first hurdle Wednesday with a 6-3 preliminary approval vote by City Council.

Council members Darlene Harris, Theresa Kail-Smith and Anthony Coghill voted against the three bills, citing among other things a state law that prohibits municipalities from regulating firearms.

Council is expected to schedule a final vote on all of the bills for Tuesday.

The three dissenters warned that Pittsburgh would face expensive lawsuits filed by gun rights groups that could drag on for years.

Members who supported the bills 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.

“We’re standing up and saying violence must stop, and we are going to provide the resources and capabilities to make that happen,” said Councilman Ricky Burgess of North Point Breeze, who represents East End neighborhoods where shootings often occur. “We must lead the way.”

Firearms supporters have vowed to sue the city and file private criminal charges against council and Mayor Bill Peduto, alleging a potential violation of the state law.

The legislation consisting of three bills would ban possession and use of certain semi-automatic weapons, including assault rifles, ammunition and accessories from within city limits. A third bill would permit courts to temporarily remove guns from a person deemed to be a public threat.

Council unanimously approved a companion bill dubbed “Stop the Violence Initiative” that would direct additional funding to city anti-violence programs and create policy for addressing gun violence and police-involved shootings.

Wednesday’s council meeting was sparsely attended, and no one spoke in opposition to the bills.

Tim Stevens, a longtime civil rights activist who chairs the Black Political Empowerment Project, urged council for passage saying assault rifles have caused immeasurable harm in Pittsburgh neighborhoods.

“We obviously want to support any effort that cuts down the presence of guns in our city, our state and our entire nation,” Stevens said. “I applaud what they’re trying to do.”

Council members Corey O’Connor of Swisshelm Park and Erika Strassburger of Squirrel Hill proposed the legislation following mass murders at the Tree of Life synagogue in Squirrel Hill. Both represent sections of that neighborhood. Strassburger, who gave birth to her first child on Saturday, voted by telephone.

“I think every council person who sits at this table thinks we need to do something about gun violence,” O’Connor said, thanking the other members, along with council staff, anti-violence organizations, attorneys and the Mayor’s Office for helping craft the legislation. “I think it’s the right fight to have and the right time to have this fight.”

Harris of Spring Hill, Kail-Smith of Westwood and Coghill of Beechview suggested that council could have approved a resolution stating its position on gun violence and asking the state to pass stiffer firearms regulations. Kail-Smith said the bills would disproportionately impact minority neighborhoods where shootings occur.

She noted that council passed an ordinance years ago requiring gun owners to report lost and stolen handguns, but the bill was never enforced because of the state’s preemptive law.

“For me, it’s not that I disagree that we ought to do something with gun violence,” she said. “We’ll never be able to enforce these laws.”

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.