Assault weapons debate may heat up
Aplan to restrict gun ownership in Pittsburgh should heat up the statewide debate in Pennsylvania about reforming firearms laws.
Two months after 11 people were gunned down in a synagogue there, Pittsburgh officials on Friday proposed a ban on assault weapons, largecapacity magazines and modifications such as bump stocks that increase firing rates.
They also want to require people who are dangerous to turn in their guns.
It’s not just Pittsburgh that should be taking those steps. Those should be the laws everywhere. It’s time. Let’s do it. Those rules wouldn’t prevent all mass shootings, but they could make them harder to commit and minimize the damage.
Pittsburgh knows it is picking a fight. If the legislation passes, it surely will be challenged in court on the grounds that municipalities cannot pass gun laws that are more restrictive than state laws.
That argument is part of what undermined an Allentown law a decade ago that required gun owners to report a lost or stolen gun within 48 hours.
Firearms Owners Against Crimes, a statewide organization, would sue over the proposals made Friday, President Kim Stolfer said. He said courts repeatedly have struck down attempts by municipalities to preempt state law, including a similar attempt by Pittsburgh in 1993 to ban assault weapons.
“I’m very troubled by this,” he said.
The suspect in the Oct. 27 Tree of Life synagogue shooting, Robert Bowers, used four weapons including an AR-15 assault rifle, according to authorities. All were purchased and possessed legally.
“No one in America wants a country where guns make our schools unsafe for children, families afraid in places of worship, and where our streets are stained every day with innocent blood,” Pittsburgh Mayor Bill Peduto said.
Officials called on other governments to pursue similar reforms and challenge state restrictions to do so.
“The Pennsylvania Constitution guarantees the rights of all people to ‘peace, safety and happiness,’” Councilwoman Erika Strassburger said. “The inability for municipal governments to enact their own common sense gun control measures defies this core principle.”
Gov. Tom Wolf attended the unveiling of the legislation in Pittsburgh, signaling his continued support for such measures statewide and nationwide.
“He understands the frustration of local communities and residents that more hasn’t been done to address gun violence and keep weapons from dangerous individuals,” Wolf spokesman J.J. Abbott said.
Some state lawmakers were there in support, too. If the Legislature would take action, cities wouldn’t have to.
There have been attempts, but they haven’t gone far. Legislators can try again when they reconvene in January.
Many bills that gained support this year but didn’t make it far enough for final votes should come up again — including one that would ban bump stocks. Another would allow for “extreme risk protection orders” similar to what Pittsburgh proposes, where a judge could issue a protection order that prohibits someone from possessing a gun if law enforcement or immediate family members show that the person poses a significant danger.
Bills to ban assault-style weapons did not advance in the Legislature this year.
The one law that was enacted this year requires people with a court-issued protection from abuse order or domestic violence conviction to relinquish their firearms to law enforcement or a licensed firearms dealer within 24 hours. They used to be able to keep their weapons for 60 days, and could give them to a friend or relative for safekeeping.
If lawmakers don’t have the courage to take further action, there may be another way for them to allow cities such as Pittsburgh to address gun violence themselves.
State Rep. Dan Frankel, a Democrat from that area, said this week that he will introduce legislation that would allow municipal and county governments to write firearms laws that are more-restrictive than state law.
“These episodes of mass violence, when coupled with the everyday firearms related violence, leave communities seeking local solutions,” Frankel wrote in a legislative sponsorship memo filed Wednesday. “It is time for us to move legislation that will expand the ability of local governments to respond to mass shootings, terror attacks and ongoing violence within their municipal borders.”
He’s right. If state lawmakers won’t take a stand against gun violence, local officials should be able to.
paul.muschick@mcall.com 610-820-6582 Paul Muschick’s columns are published Monday through Friday at themorningcall.com and Sunday, Wednesday and Friday in The Morning Call. Follow me on Facebook at PaulMuschickColumns, Twitter @mcwatchdog and themorningcall.com/muschick.