The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has granted a petition for allowance of appeal in a case that challenges a Philadelphia ordinance banning privately manufactured firearms (PMF).
The case was filed in state court by Gun Owners of America (GOA) and Gun Owners Foundation (GOF) after the City of Philadelphia passed a city ordinance that restricted the manufacturing of firearms, components, and attachments for personal use by residents. Philadelphia Mayor Cherelle Parker and former Mayor Jim Kennedy both claimed that so-called “ghost guns” were flooding the streets of the City of Brotherly Love, leading to an epidemic of gun violence, even though the raw data doesn’t back that conclusion.
The ordinance doesn’t just ban building guns from 80% frame kits such as those sold by the now defunct Polymer80, but it also forbids the making of firearms via additive manufacturing such as 3D printing. Nowhere else in the state is this practice banned, and state law doesn’t say you can’t 3D print a gun. In fact, Pennsylvania is the home of the Makers Match, which is a shooting competition that uses 3D-printed firearms.
The plaintiffs in the case claimed that the city was breaking Pennsylvania law when the ordinance was passed. The Keystone State has one of the strongest preemption laws in the country, meaning that a city cannot make its own gun laws, although it appears that Philadelphia did just that. Nothing in commonwealth law bans PMFs, so the city should be forbidden from creating a ban.
The plaintiffs also claim that the ordinance violates the Pennsylvania Constitution, which guarantees the right to bear arms, much like the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. Both claims fell on deaf ears when a lower court heard the case. The lower court is notoriously anti-gun and ruled against the plaintiffs. GOA appealed the decision to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court last year.
Much like the United States Supreme Court, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court doesn’t have to take a case because a petition was filed. They agreed to hear arguments in this case, which is a good sign for gun owners in Philadelphia. The hope is that the Commonwealth Supreme Court will correct the lower court’s errors.
GOA and GOF were hopeful that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court would restore the rights of the citizens of Philadelphia and send a message to other localities across the Commonwealth that violating the state’s preemption law and the right of citizens to keep and bear arms will not be tolerated.
“Philadelphia’s efforts to regulate firearm manufacturing go against the core of Pennsylvania’s firearm preemption law and violate the rights of its citizens,” said Gun Owners of America Senior Vice President Erich Pratt. “With the Pennsylvania Supreme Court now agreeing to hear this case, we are hopeful that Pennsylvanians’ rights will be protected from Philadelphia’s unconstitutional tyranny at the local level.”
“This is a critical moment for gun owners across Pennsylvania,” said Sam Paredes on behalf of Gun Owners Foundation. “The Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision to take up this case shows the importance of safeguarding our enumerated right to keep and bear arms. Philadelphia’s overreach needs to be stopped, and we believe the court will uphold the law and protect citizens’ rights.”
The outcome of this case will have a rippling effect across the state.
About John Crump
Mr. Crump is an NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. John has written about firearms, interviewed people from all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons, follow him on X at @crumpyss, or at www.crumpy.com.
United States Supreme Court, has proven time and time again that it is no longer the balance of justice that follows only the law, Their interpretation is politically motivated time and time again Justice Roberts has been a disappointment from day one. As I have watched that court instead of ruling on a case to end a legal battle send case after case back to the lower courts. Our justice system is far from perfect while it is better than most places in the free world. The lower courts filled with political appointed riff raff of left wing out of… Read more »
The longer the US Supreme Court goes with out enforcing it’s pro Second Amendment rulings, the faster it will simply finish castrating itself and no longer be the “SUPREME” court.
It’s mind boggling to me how cities and states think they can make their own rules and laws that circumvent the constitution and most of all what gets me is that they have been allowed to get away with it. The act of 1934 according to Bruen decision should have already been rescinded.
What up wit dat!!!!
Screw the blue commie/socialist/Marxist state laws!!!!
As a PA resident (the REAL part of it, not the blue blotches of Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Harrisburg, Wilkes Barre-Scranton or Allentown) I’m hopeful that the PASC will hear this case. The city of Phila has always had the highest crime rate in the state and continues to blame guns instead of the criminals. They try this even after seeing Pittsburgh get flattened in court for try to make their own gun laws.
It just goes to show that liberals don’t learn from history.
they could restrict reloading and storage of bulk powder in city limits ,that was done in colonial times because black powder can explode with simple static discharge , guns were made by anyone with the ability so that can not be restricted
Wonder which way old Sotomayor will vote?
I hope they have a better plan than relying on Pennsylvania’s preemption law. It does not mention making a firearm. https://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/LI/CT/HTM/18/00.061.020.000..HTM § 6120. Limitation on the regulation of firearms and ammunition. (a) General rule.–No county, municipality or township may in any manner regulate the lawful ownership, possession, transfer or transportation of firearms, ammunition or ammunition components when carried or transported for purposes not prohibited by the laws of this Commonwealth. The next part of it does mention manufacture but that retty clearly refers to businesses, no individuals. (a.1) No right of action.– (1) No political subdivision may bring or maintain… Read more »