Court: City can’t enact assault weapons ban

Gun control ordinances in violation of state law

HARRISBURG — Just days after a deadly school shooting in Texas, a Pennsylvania state appellate court upheld that the city of Pittsburgh can’t enforce an assault weapons ban.

In a court opinion released Friday, the state Commonwealth

Court upheld an Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas ruling that found the city violated state law when it passed a package of gun control ordinances after the Tree of Life Synagogue mass shooting.

Pennsylvania law prohibits municipalities from regulating guns.

The city will appeal the ruling to the state Supreme Court, Pittsburgh Mayor Ed Gainey said in a statement.

“Our city took action after the horrendous, anti-Semitic massacre at the Tree of Life synagogue, and the ordinances we passed can save lives,” Mr. Gainey said. “Despite a devastating spike in gun violence throughout the Commonwealth and the nation, the Pennsylvania General Assembly has not acted to make our communities safer.”

After the Tree of Life shooting in October 2018, Pittsburgh City Council passed a number of laws that would ban assault weapons, high-capacity magazines and specific types of ammunition from public places.

In addition to an assault weapons ban, the city passed a so-called “red flag” law. This would allow local law enforcement to temporarily remove a firearm from a person who is in immediate danger to themselves or others.

These actions were in direct response to the Tree of Life attack, the deadliest antisemitic attack in American history. The shooter, who killed 11 worshippers inside the synagogue, used an AR-15 as part of his attack. This assault-style rifle is the most popular rifle model in the United States.

Today, there are 20 million

AR-15-style rifles in the U.S., the Wall Street Journal reported.

Council member Erika Strassburger said she is confident the state Supreme Court would rule in their favor.

“After the devastating mass murder at Tree of Life, we acted decisively within our home rule authority to tighten access to lethal weapons,” Ms. Strassburger said in a statement. “This week’s tragic school shooting in Uvalde, on the heels of yet another mass shooting in Buffalo, only solidifies the need for all communities to use their laws and resources to root out would-be mass shooters and protect all their residents.”

Several firearm groups sued the city in 2019 after it enacted the local gun control laws, including the Firearm Policy Coalition. The groups could not be immediately reached for comment.

The Commonwealth Court upheld that the state Supreme Court has ruled several times in the past that state law does not allow cities to enforce their own local firearm laws.

The judges hung much of the opinion on the state’s 1996 landmark ruling in Ortiz v. Commonwealth, in which Pittsburgh and Philadelphia tried to ban some assault-style weapons within their borders. At the time, the state Supreme Court ruled that the state Legislature has control over gun regulations — not cities.

Three of the Commonwealth Court’s seven judges signed a concurring and dissenting opinion, written by Judge Ellen Ceisler. In it, Judge Ceisler and Judges Renee Cohn Jubelirer and Michael Wojcik called on the state Supreme Court to “overturn or rein in” the 1996 Ortiz ruling for being “unjustifiably broad.”

Pennsylvania House and Senate Democrats this week urged their Republican colleagues in Harrisburg to consider some of the numerous gun control measures they’ve introduced, some with bipartisan support. House Democrats tried to get the House to suspend its rules and vote on an assault weapons ban, although that effort failed in an almost-partyline vote.

In the majority opinion, the Commonwealth Court seemed to acknowledge this week’s mass shooting in Uvalde, Texas, where 19 children and two adults were killed by an 18-yearold man with an AR-15-style rifle.

“That being said, the precious lives lost to senseless violence in our nation is beyond tragic,” Judge Patricia McCullough wrote in the majority opinion. “The systemic issues and divisiveness in this once united nation are painfully apparent. The pressing need for peaceful public discourse with respect for our ‘inalienable rights to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness’ is imperative.”

To end the opinion, she quoted Abraham Lincoln’s famous quotation: “[A] house divided against itself cannot stand.”