Recent court ruling bodes well for Pittsburgh’s controversial gun bills, officials say |

Recent court ruling bodes well for Pittsburgh’s controversial gun bills, officials say

Bob Bauder
Pittsburgh hopes a recent Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling is an indication justices will rule favorably on controversial firearms regulations.

Last week’s Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision upholding Pittsburgh’s paid sick leave ordinance provided some hope that the justices could rule in the city’s favor if called on to decide its controversial firearms regulations, officials said.

Justices were split 4-3 in allowing the paid sick leave ordinance to stand. Four of the seven-member court’s five Democrats voted to uphold the ordinance. Justice Max Baer, a Democrat, joined the court’s two Republicans — Chief Justice Thomas G. Saylor and Justice Sallie Mundy — in dissenting.

The city will begin enforcing the ordinance 90 days after developing a plan to enforce it.

“Obviously there’s hope if you win the one tough battle that you can win another,” said Pittsburgh City Councilman Corey O’Connor, a sponsor of the gun and paid sick leave ordinances. “Who knows. We’ve now been pleasantly surprised, and you never know when it comes to the (gun bills).”

City Council in April passed a package of controversial gun laws prohibiting the use of certain semiautomatic weapons, ammunition and accessories within city limits. It included a bill dubbed “extreme risk protection” permitting courts to seize guns from a person considered by police or relatives to be a public threat.

Two gun-rights groups — Allegheny County Sportsmen’s League and Firearm Owners Against Crime — and three individuals responded with three lawsuits contending the bills are illegal and seeking contempt charges against Mayor Bill Peduto and six council members, including O’Connor, who voted in favor of the bills.

Peduto said the paid sick leave and gun ordinances were similar in offering protections for residents , but he wasn’t ready to predict the gun legislation would survive a court challenge.

“We’ll see, but that’s a different battle and one that will probably, like I said from the very beginning, work its way up to the Supreme Court,” Peduto said.

Pittsburgh has suspended enforcement of the legislation until the lawsuits are resolved.

G. Terry Madonna, director of the Center for Politics and Public Affairs at Franklin & Marshall College, said the current Supreme Court makeup could favor the city.

“I’m not predicting that, but given the current Supreme Court they might have a better chance at getting that passed,” he said, noting that state and federal courts have become more polarized in recent years. “The courts to some extent they’ve always been ideological, and they’ve become more ideological because the country has become more ideological.”

O’Connor of Swisshelm Park said he was surprised that the city won the sick leave case given that courts have consistently ruled the city’s Home Rule Charter prohibited it from regulating private business. The state Supreme Court previously shot down a city ordinance requiring gun owners to report a lost or stolen handgun to police.

Second Amendment advocates said they’re confident the court also would rule against the most recent firearms regulations.

Attorney Josh Prince, who represents Firearm Owners Against Crime, said the court has consistently ruled that only the Pennsylvania General Assembly can regulate firearms. He said Pittsburgh is precluded from regulating guns under the Pennsylvania Crimes Code and the state Constitution.

“I really don’t see that (the paid sick leave case) has any bearing whatsoever in the litigation regarding firearms and the extreme risk protection order,” Prince said. “They are specifically proscribed from being able to regulate firearms and ammunition.”

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 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.