Score another victory for gun rights! The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled against a legal challenge against the state’s firearm preemption laws that prohibit local governments from further infringing on the right to keep and bear arms.
Currently, Pennsylvania’s preemption laws prohibit local governments from passing gun control measures that go further than firearms restrictions passed at the state level. The ruling means that there will be uniformity when it comes to gun control laws, which means it is less likely that an individual might find themselves in legal jeopardy due to confusion about local restrictions on firearms.
The ruling comes after an appeals court dismissed the original challenge against the law. “The General Assembly’s authority over municipalities is supreme…municipalities may do only those things which the legislature has expressly or by necessary implication permitted,” Justice Kevin Brobson wrote in his opinion.
The court argued that the state constitution “does not provide that the right to bear arms shall not be questioned in some parts of the Commonwealth but abridged at will in others” and that “Regulation of firearms is a matter of statewide concern.”
The court acknowledged the argument that allowing local regulations tailored for each community could address unique public safety challenges in urban areas. But the court decided that “The need for uniformity in gun regulation outweighs the local interests in enacting laws specific to their communities.”
The appellants argued that preemption laws created a state-sponsored danger by making it harder for local governments to combat violent crime. However, the court countered this argument, noting that “Preemption laws do not mandate or encourage gun violence.”
The original lawsuit was filed in 2020 by multiple city governments.
Mayor Jim Kenney and other city leaders on Wednesday plan to announce a lawsuit against Pennsylvania, challenging the city’s long-standing inability to enact its own gun control ordinances.
The legal effort, to be discussed at an afternoon news conference in Germantown, will mark the latest attempt by local leaders in Pennsylvania to overturn a concept known as preemption, which prohibits cities from passing local gun laws.
It also comes as the city is in the midst of its most violent year in more than a decade. Through Tuesday, 366 people have been killed in 2020 — the vast majority of whom were fatally shot — and more than 1,600 people have been wounded in shootings, according to police statistics.
City officials said in a statement that their suit will be filed on behalf of residents “whose lives have been profoundly impacted by gun violence,” and that the suit will argue that the current status quo “handcuffs local governments so that they cannot enact or enforce even simple, well-researched policies that have repeatedly been shown to be effective in saving lives.”
While I’m sure I would disagree with the majority of Pennsylvania’s gun laws, this was the right ruling. Normally I prefer that state government leaves local governments alone to pass their own measures. But when it comes to a natural right that is protected by the Constitution, it is appropriate for higher levels of government to intervene – as long as they are protecting these rights. This means fewer people will face unconstitutional gun charges simply for possessing the means to defend themselves.
The argument that Pennsylvania’s preemption laws would somehow promote gun violence is curious as well. It seems to me that making it harder for law-abiding citizens to purchase and carry firearms would only encourage violent criminals who do not respect the law to victimize the public. Unfortunately, this logic escapes anti-gunners who believe the citizenry should rely solely on the government to protect their lives and property.
