Editorial: Prosecuting Peduto for gun ban is wrong move | TribLIVE.com

Editorial: Prosecuting Peduto for gun ban is wrong move

Pittsburgh Mayor Bill Peduto signs multiple gun legislation bills during a signing ceremony inside of the City-County Building on Tuesday.

Six members of Pittsburgh’s city council and Mayor Bill Peduto have taken steps to change the law within their sphere of influence as applies to a certain class of weapon.

It was a big step. The U.S. and Pennsylvania constitutions both uphold gun ownership as a right. But both also impose limits and some hurdles that recognize — as with so many rights — it is also a responsibility not to be taken lightly.

Many believe Peduto and Co. have radically overstepped the boundaries of their authority. That may be right. It will no doubt be settled in a courtroom, as multiple lawsuits challenging the Pittsburgh gun ban have been filed. There are serious and valid reasons as to why they may succeed. A judge may decide that state law does preempt a city’s own guidelines, or that it violates either constitution (or both).

Where it shouldn’t be settled is a criminal courtroom.

Multiple city residents and others have attempted to file private criminal complaints against the mayor and council members.

The overlapping layers of our government include round robins of checks and balances at the local, state and federal levels. If an official in one area does something that is outside the lines, there are ways to take care of it.

Unconstitutional laws are passed in Washington or a state capital or a city hall all the time. Improper actions are recommended by mayors and governors and presidents. The remedy is not handcuffs. It is exactly the path the Pittsburgh gun ban is already following.

It isn’t up to the branch passing the law or the executive signing it to decide if it meets the constitutional bar. It’s up to the judicial branch to evaluate it and, if necessary, overturn it.

Rep. Daryl Metcalfe, R-Cranberry, has said he is pursuing impeachment of Peduto. That’s another check baked into the system.

As our society becomes increasingly polarized, we are more and more likely to demonize the people who oppose us. It is bad enough when we can’t have effective discussions with each other. It’s bad enough that compromise has all but disappeared. But criminalizing disagreement endangers us all.

Categories: Opinion | Editorials
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.