Joseph Sabino Mistick: Judge Dillon, guns & Pittsburgh |
Joseph Sabino Mistick, Columnist

Joseph Sabino Mistick: Judge Dillon, guns & Pittsburgh

Joseph Sabino Mistick
People lay flowers at memorials outside of the Tree of Life Congregation on Monday, Oct. 29, 2018 where 11 people were shot and killed on Saturday. People lay flowers at memorials outside of the Tree of Life Congregation in Squirrel Hill Oct. 29.

Let us start with the fact that Pittsburgh City Council’s gun-control legislation is born of heartbreak, frustration and anger over the murder of 11 of our neighbors during morning services at the Tree of Life synagogue in October.

Councilman Corey O’Connor’s proposal to regulate guns within Pittsburgh city limits is a natural human attempt to do something — anything — in response to that tragedy. And those who debate the Second Amendment without witnessing the helplessness of the families, congregations, neighborhoods and cities that have been shattered by military-style weapons clearly do not know the actual impact of those weapons.

But the reality is that under our law, any real legislative solution will turn on the words of John Forrest Dillon, a 19th-century federal circuit court judge. Dillon was chief justice of the Iowa Supreme Court before President Ulysses S. Grant named him to the federal circuit court in 1869. And Dillon authored Dillon’s Rule, which is followed by Pennsylvania and most other states.

Dillon’s Rule states that municipalities are arms of the state, without inherent powers of their own. Without the state’s approval, certain subjects of legislation are beyond the power of local government because they are reserved by the state to the state. Gun regulation is one of those subjects.

As Dillon said in an 1868 opinion, “Municipal corporations owe their origin to, and derive their powers and rights wholly from, the legislature. It breathes into them the breath of life, without which they cannot exist. As it creates, so may it destroy. If it may destroy, it may abridge and control.”

Pittsburgh’s leaders have encountered Judge Dillon before. In 1907, the U.S. Supreme Court cited Dillon’s Rule when it affirmed Pittsburgh’s annexation of the city of Allegheny against the wishes of that city’s voters. The court ruled that Pittsburgh simply used the power granted to it by the state Legislature, and Allegheny City was trying to use power that it had not been granted.

In Connecticut, more recently, because local leaders knew they lacked the power to enact gun reforms after 20 children and seven adults were killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012, the Connecticut legislature stepped up. It passed tough gun regulations that limited magazine capacity, required background checks, banned over 100 assault weapon models, funded school safety and mental health programs, and created a dangerous offenders registry.

And Pittsburgh’s leaders must follow that same path, if they want laws that will stick. The mayor should be in Harrisburg every single week the Legislature is in session, knocking on every door and pressing Pittsburgh’s case at every turn.

And council members should convince their colleagues around the state to join the fight. Every association of municipal officials in Pennsylvania must be recruited. And local leaders who have not yet experienced the evil that came to Pittsburgh must know that it is only a matter of time before that evil visits their towns.

Much of this will take place out of public view, and it will rarely make headlines. But this is the only way. This is the hard work of democracy.

Joseph Sabino Mistick is a Pittsburgh lawyer. Reach him at [email protected].

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.