Anti-Gunners Win in Pennsylvania, State Court Overturns Pro-Gun Law

Pittsburgh has banded together with other municipalities to stand strong against a law that allowed “membership organizations” like the National Rifle Association to sue over local gun ordinances that are more stringent than their state law counterparts.

Act 192 gave membership groups the ability to challenge cities that imposed unnecessarily strict gun laws. The act was effective, causing over 20 Pennsylvania municipalities to repeal gun laws in order to avoid being sued, but Pittsburgh, Philadelphia and, Lancaster stood strong against the bill, challenging its constitutionality.

A state appeals court ultimately ruled that Act 192, which also included other gun-related provisions, was unconstitutional because it violated the single-subject requirement that prohibits bills from containing more than one subject.

Gun control advocates hailed the decision as a win, claiming Act 192 was unconstitutional and malicious from the beginning.

“This law was clearly unconstitutional from the outset, and designed to threaten Pittsburgh and other cities trying to protect their neighborhoods from illegal guns,” said Mayor Bill Peduto. “I’m overjoyed that the court system is joining us in standing up for citizens and public safety instead of special rights for the gun lobby.”

“It was a bad policy and a bad procedure, “ said Shira Goodman, executive director of Philadelphia-based Ceasefire PA. “I think this was a very straightforward case from the beginning.”

Despite the fact that Act 192 was nixed, many pro-gun advocates feel another, similar bill could be introduced that adheres to the single-subject rule.

“This is definitely a wake-up call for the legislative process,” said Kim Stolfer, a South Fayette gun-rights activist and president of Firearms Owners Against Crime. “But it’s not over by any stretch.”

Act 192 ruled unconstitutional

(This article was submitted by freelance writer Brent Rogers)

About the author: S.H. Blannelberry is the News Editor of GunsAmerica.

{ 2 comments… add one }
  • Bob Matota January 26, 2018, 1:27 pm

    Conflicting laws (legal here — but NOT over here) are confusing to us all… especially when simply crossing a boundary line (as for a city or township) places a citizen that does NOT have criminal intent in a position of criminality. We all should be concerned when there is no uniformity in the law and in enforcement of the law. With firearms this becomes a huge issue for the unintentional “law breaker” as the penalties in many instances far exceed the crime of moving from one area to another. Weapons charges always look awful on peoples record (which follows you everywhere) and no allowances are made for how the situation arose. The charge is there and does not go away, which affects many areas of our lives such as employment, credit, insurance, etc. — and lets not forget reputation. All this for an unintentional violation. Keep our laws uniform throughout so that we can remain “law abiding citizens”>

  • t monk January 26, 2018, 8:33 am

    THINK ABOUT THIS THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE IN PA ARE TAXED TO DEATH BY THE STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT. ALL YOU LIBERALS WHO SUPORT GUN CONTROL AND PISS ABOUT THE TAXES. STOP AND THINK ABOUT THE MONEY THESE PEOPLE ARE WASTING WITH THIS BULLCRAP JUST ENFORCE THE LAWS WE HAVE, WE DONT NEED NEW ONES

Leave a Comment

Send this to a friend