Editorial: Pittsburgh gun ban is politics’ fault | TribLIVE.com

Editorial: Pittsburgh gun ban is politics’ fault

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.

On Tuesday, Pittsburgh’s council passed a package of laws that would ban some weapons within the city limits and regulate access for people deemed an “extreme risk.”

There are people who see this as a step forward in a nation where gun violence has become heartbreakingly commonplace while action to mitigate it has become mired in politics.

They are mirrored by those who see this as a troubling and precedent-setting overreach by a municipality into territory that is out of their control — legislation that should be left to the state and federal governments, both of which protect gun ownership in their constitutions.

It is framed as a this-or-that issue. Protect our children from school shootings or protect my Second Amendment right to bear arms. Prevent another Tree of Life massacre or prevent law- abiding citizens from being unfairly obstructed from defending their lives and property.

But it isn’t an either-or question. It is possible, like so many other big issues, to be both at the same time.

Pittsburgh has taken rare action in the wake of the deaths of 11 Jewish congregants in Squirrel Hill. In less than six months, council made a move that is frequently mentioned on a national level in the aftermath of a mass shooting but has yet to be seriously addressed by Congress.

Council took a stand. All nine of them — the six who voted for it and the three who voted against — listened to the pros and cons, debated the ups and downs, and voted their consciences. The process worked.

Except that it might be somewhat illegal. The state isn’t any more fond of giving up power over major issues, such as gun regulation, to the individual vagaries of its cities and townships and boroughs than the federal government is.

Which is why Pittsburgh shouldn’t have had to address it. Harrisburg should have. Washington should have.

These conversations should not have to fall to nine men and women in city government. The question of how do we protect our kids and our public spaces from random bursts of violence is not just a Pittsburgh question. The issue of how do we protect our liberties from encroachment by the government is not just about guns. The balancing of the two is a national imperative and a state responsibility, and the debate needs to start somewhere.

And if not Pittsburgh, where? And if not after the Tree of Life, when?

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.