Gun-ban opponents’ efforts dismissed

A judge on Wednesday dismissed an effort by opponents of Pittsburgh’s gun-ban ordinances to force Allegheny County District Attorney Stephen A. Zappala Jr. to accept and review their private criminal complaints against members of City Council.

Allegheny County Common Pleas Senior Judge Joseph James ruled in favor of Mr. Zappala after listening to about a half-hour of argument from both sides.

The dispute began in April, when four city residents tried to file private criminal complaints alleging that the council members committed misdemeanor official oppression when they passed ordinances that limit the

types of guns that can be used in the city, among other restrictions.

Mr. Zappala refused to accept the complaints and his office turned the residents away with a written statement that explained why he could not approve the complaints.

That approach by Mr. Zappala — refusing to even look at the complaints — prompted the residents to file a lawsuit to try to force him to review the complaints and then determine whether to approve or deny them, the residents’ attorney, Lane Turturice, said Wednesday.

“The top law enforcement officer of Allegheny County has a duty to accept private criminal complaints when a citizen provides them,” he said. “It doesn’t mean he has to approve them, but he has to accept them.”

Mr. Zappala’s attorney, Chuck Porter, called the hearing “a show” and said the residents should have taken up their complaint with the county’s administrative judge — the typical way such disputes are settled — instead of filing the lawsuit.

“Their argument is silly, quite frankly,” he said after the hearing.

Mr. Porter argued that the private criminal complaints were premature because no crime had yet been committed, and so Mr. Zappala was not obligated to accept or review them.

The crime alleged — official oppression — is defined by the state as anytime a person acting in an official capacity behaves in a way they know is illegal and subjects someone else to “arrest, detention, search, seizure, mistreatment, dispossession, assessment, lien or other infringement of personal or property rights” or generally infringes on any other person’s rights.

Mr. Turturice argued that the City Council members knew the local gun ordinances conflicted with state law — which prohibits municipalities from passing local gun restrictions — yet passed the ordinances anyway, hence subjecting county gun owners to arrest, detention and seizures.

Mr. Porter countered that the ordinances were never enforced and no one was subjected to arrest, detention or seizure, so no crime occurred.

“No one has been charged, no one will be charged, no one can be charged,” he said. “No one is in fear of apprehension.” The city has suspended enforcement of the laws during an ongoing court challenge.

Mr. Turturice argued that the crime was committed when the ordinances were passed, and said whether or not they were enforced does not matter.

“It’s still the law of the land,” he said. “It’s an ordinance on the books. It just happens not to be enforced right now.”

Based in Washington, Pa., Mr. Turturice represents plaintiffs Mary Konieczny of South Side Flats; Anthony J. Golembiewski of Lawrenceville; Christopher W. Humphrey of Stanton Heights; and Therese Thompson-Miles of Brookline.

Mr. Turturice said after the judgment was issued Wednesday that his clients were disappointed by the decision and considering an appeal. A spokesman for Mr. Zappala declined to comment on the judgment Wednesday.