Court Reminds Local Governments They Lack Authority to Restrict Guns

Court Gavel
Court Reminds Local Governments They Lack Authority to Restrict Guns
National Rifle Association Institute For Legislative Action (NRA-ILA)
National Rifle Association Institute For Legislative Action (NRA-ILA)

Fairfax, VA – -(Ammoland.com)- Pennsylvania's Uniform Firearms Act (UFA), section 6120(a), directs that “[n]o county, municipality or township may in any manner regulate the lawful ownership, possession, transfer or transportation of firearms . . . .” 18 Pa. C.S. § 6120(a).

The UFA rests on the legal concept of “preemption,” in which a higher level of government – the state –expressly restricts the power or law-making authority it grants to its political subdivisions. This law, like similar laws in 45 states, was enacted to eliminate the inconsistent and confusing regulatory hodge-podge that results when each locality adopts its own “customized” regulations on guns, and serves to ensure that the firearm laws remain uniform across a state.

Previous court cases interpreting Pennsylvania’s law – including a lawsuit brought by the NRA against the City of Philadelphia – have invalidated local gun-control measures including prohibitions on the possession, transfer and sale of “assault weapons.”

Despite this and the clear language of the UFA, in 2011, Lower Merion Township in Pennsylvania adopted an ordinance, Code § 109-16. The ordinance, allegedly based on the need to enhance the safety of Township residents and the public’s use and enjoyment of local parks, prohibited persons from “carry[ing] or discharg[ing] firearms of any kind in a park without a special permit, unless exempted,” and punished violators with a penalty of up to $600.00 for each violation. The only exemption applied to “authorized members of the Police Department.”

A group, Firearm Owners Against Crime (FOAC), initially approached the Township to repeal the ordinance, based on state preemption. The Township declined, relying on its rights as a property owner and claiming the ordinance was consistent with the UFA preemption language because it only prohibited the unlawful possession of firearms in parks, allowing for possession with a “special permit.”

In the ensuing litigation challenging the validity of the ordinance, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, in a 2-1 decision, reversed a 2015 trial court decision and enjoined enforcement of the ordinance. Firearm Owners Against Crime v. Lower Merion Township, No. 1693 C.D. 2015 (Pa. Commw. Ct. Dec. 16, 2016).

The court rejected the claim that the ordinance was within the authority of a municipality regulating the use of its own property. The underlying basis for the ordinance was the Township’s police power, not proprietary rights, because the ordinance imposed a criminal penalty and authorized officers to enforce the ordinance by removing and prosecuting violators. More generally, the UFA explicitly prohibited a township from regulating firearms “in any manner,” without an exemption that would authorize the township to make rules for its park property.

The court also gave short shrift to the claim that the UFA did not preempt a municipality’s regulation of unlawful firearm possession.

Earlier court precedent on the preemption law “prohibits this Court from endorsing the argument that a cognizable distinction exists between regulating lawful activity and unlawful activity.” Even assuming otherwise, the ordinance did not come within the supposed exception. It regulated possession that was not already unlawful under state law – there was “no corresponding provision in the Crimes Code that contained such a blanket ban of firearm possession in a park” – and the Township could not create its own class of unlawful conduct with which to justify the ordinance.

The ordinance was not consistent with the UFA, andbecause there are no apparently reasonable grounds for the trial court’s decision,” the Commonwealth Court reversed the lower court ruling. The upshot is that in Pennsylvania, the General Assembly, not municipal councils, is the proper forum for the imposition of firearm regulations.

About:
Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Visit: www.nra.org

6
Leave a Reply

Please Login to comment
3 Comment threads
3 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
5 Comment authors
Mike LNeb SelimVonZorchMikeLJim S Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
Notify of
Neb Selim
Guest
Neb Selim

THE STATE GOVERNMENT OF CALIFORNIA HAS REDEFINED EXACTLY WHO IS A CRIMINAL IN CALIFORNIA AND IT IS THAT GOVERNMENT WHICH CONTINUOUSLY WRITES AND ENACTS UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAWS!

CA Legislature Doesn’t Care About the Constitution
Gun Owners of California GOC

Published on Mar 16, 2016
Assemblyman Jones-Sawyer tells it like it is … that California doesn’t care about the Constitution

Mike L
Guest
Mike L

Neb Selim, no truer words could be written. I’m one california native that will not stand by while they continue to rule their roost. Once they find out you fear them, then they attempt to walk all over you. I don’t fear! I patiently wait….

Jim S
Guest
Jim S

Could we please get some common sense judges in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals? Californistan passes all sorts of questionable laws regulating 2A and the 9th CC routinely says “sounds like a good idea, better safe than sorry” and upholds almost everything that is passed.

MikeL
Guest
MikeL

@ Jim S, yeah this will happen when we can get voters that actually can read n write n speaka da english, and actually understand exactly what or who it is they be voting for!

VonZorch
Guest
VonZorch

Ahh, the 9th Circus, the most overturned Circuit court.

Jim Macklin
Guest
Jim Macklin

Stupid government run by people who write a law to make lawful self-defesne illegal except for police officers [in the line of duty?] are always counter productive.

When muggers and rapists know that their victims can’t fight back, muggings and rapes increase.

At least the higher court actually reads and understands law.