Gun-rights activists cite Zappala as part of effort to undo new city law

Four months after the district attorney’s office blocked a group from filing private criminal complaints against Pittsburgh’s mayor and several council members over the city’s gun-ban ordinances, activists are taking the county’s top lawman to court.

Four city residents Thursday sued Allegheny County District Attorney Stephen A. Zappala Jr. in Common Pleas Court, alleging that he has breached his official duties by refusing to accept their complaints.

In April, the plaintiffs appeared at the Pittsburgh Municipal Court Building, Downtown, in an attempt to file private complaints against Mayor Bill Peduto and members of City Council. But they were rebuffed by Mike Manko, spokesman for the DA’s office.

At the time, Mr. Manko said that before the DA’s office was allowed to review a private criminal complaint, the city’s ordinance would have to be in effect — it was

scheduled to be phased in over a 120-day period -— and someone would have to be cited.

The plaintiffs are asking a judge to force Mr. Zappala to accept their private criminal complaints alleging that the mayor and City Council have committed a crime by passing what they called “an illegal firearm and gun accessory ordinance” in Pittsburgh. They argued that only the state Legislature is empowered to regulate guns.

The DA’s office declined comment.

The plaintiffs are Mary Konieczny of South Side Flats, Anthony J. Golembiewski of Lawrenceville, Christopher W. Humphrey of Stanton Heights, and Therese Thompson-Miles of Brookline. They are represented by attorney Lane M. Turturice of Washington, Pa.

They argue that Mr. Peduto and City Council are guilty of official oppression and claim that Mr. Zappala’s office has failed to act.

Mr. Turturice said Mr. Manko was off the mark in April.

Mr. Turturice is arguing that because the plaintiffs are challenging the actions of the mayor and City Council rather than the ordinance itself, it is irrelevant whether the ordinance has fully gone into effect or people have been cited.

“The complaints submitted have nothing to do with the violation of underlying ordinances; they had to do with public officials exceeding their authority and using their official capacities to force their own personal beliefs on the electorate,” Mr. Turturice said Friday.

“The only issue with the district attorney is the fact that they presented these private criminal complaints months ago and instead of reviewing them, they were dismissed out of hand,” Mr. Turturice said. “No one from the district attorney’s office reviewed them.”

On April 9, Mr. Peduto signed three gun-control ordinances into law. The bills ban the use of semi-automatic weapons and certain accessories in public places and allow courts to temporarily seize weapons from a person who is exhibiting “red flag” signs of extreme risk to themselves or others.

In June, a Common Pleas judge ordered that the city’s gun-control ordinances will not be enforced until the court deems them legal.

State and local gunrights groups, as well as four other local residents backed by the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action, have filed three separate lawsuits against the city — including two actions to halt the laws and another petitioning to hold the city in contempt for violating Pennsylvania preemption laws on local regulation of firearms.

Mr. Turturice, a gun owner, praised Mr. Zappala for earlier statements trying to steer the city away from gun legislation.

“While I certainly see the desire for such type of legislation at the state and federal levels, I believe that City Council does not have the authority to pass such legislation,” Mr. Zappala said in January.

“Steve, I felt, did his best to guide and urge the city not to act on those ordinances in the beginning because he knew himself they were illegal,” Mr. Turturice said. “I think Steve tried to show some genuine leadership to the city, but it fell on deaf ears.”