Anti-Gun Extremists Continue Long History of Failure in PA Courts

Philadelphia and Pittsburgh have been trying, and failing, to circumvent Pennsylvania’s firearm preemption law, first enacted in 1974, for decades.  In 1993, both cities passed bans on so-called “assault weapons;” a more severe restriction than Pennsylvania has in place, and the specific type of local regulation firearm preemption laws are designed to prohibit.  In the 1996 case Ortiz v. Pennsylvania, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania determined the cities could not ban these commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms.

In 2008, the Philadelphia City Council passed, and then-mayor Michael Nutter signed, a number of new laws regulating firearms, including another ban on so-called “assault weapons.”  NRA challenged those local measures, and two of the provisions—the ban and a one-handgun-a-month restriction—were quickly permanently enjoined.

Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, sometimes joined by other municipalities, seem to never want to admit they are statutorily prohibited from enacting the gun laws they keep trying to enact, no matter how many times the courts—and sometimes the legislature—make it clear that they are.

In 2019, yet another court told Pittsburgh its attempt at circumventing preemption—including yet another ordinance aimed at so-called “assault weapons”—was not permitted.

Undeterred by loss after loss—both in the courts and in the legislature, where extreme anti-gun bills have failed to be passed and enacted into law—Philadelphia and Pittsburgh continue to promote attacks on the Second Amendment.

In 2021, Philadelphia filed a lawsuit against Pennsylvania in another attempt to undo preemption; arguing the law restricting local gun control laws is unconstitutional.  After suffering yet another setback with an en banc panel of the Commonwealth Court, Philadelphia appealed to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, and on November 20, the city lost again.

A unanimous decision in Crawford v, Commonwealth dismissed the appeal with prejudice.

Loss after loss after loss means nothing to those determined to eviscerate the rights of law-abiding gun owners, as other legal challenges to preemption are ongoing…for the time being.  We would be remiss if we did not mention that there is a considerable cost to all of these fruitless legal tactics—that is, a considerable financial cost.  Of course, the politicians and the lawyers promoting these seemingly endless, self-serving legal shenanigans don’t have to spend their own money for their consistently losing political posturing in the courts.

That cost is borne by the taxpaying citizens of Pennsylvania.  In fact, taxpayers foot the bill for both sides of these cases; the municipalities challenging preemption, as well as for the commonwealth defending preemption.  It’s all money that would likely be far better served going towards proven measures to reduce violent crime related to firearms—the alleged goal of those promoting these attacks on preemption.  Sadly, they seem to view law-abiding gun owners as the ones driving crime, rather than the violent criminals who are the true source.

NRA, of course, will remain vigilant protecting the Second Amendment in Pennsylvania.  We have been deeply involved in defending preemption, both in the courts and the legislature, where we have supported bills that strengthen the statute.  We have also worked diligently to defend against anti-gun bills in Harrisburg, the state capital—the only place where gun control laws should be considered.

As previously noted, other legal challenges to preemption remain alive in the Pennsylvania court system, and anti-gun proponents have stated they will continue to try to achieve through judges what they cannot in Harrisburg.

Perhaps most interesting is at least one argument being promoted on behalf of circumventing preemption.

Adam Garber, the executive director of the anti-gun group CeaseFirePA, is apparently willing to argue that Joe Biden, along with countless other anti-gun advocates, are wrong when it comes to so-called “ghost guns.”

This is just the most recent term invented by anti-gun extremists and designed to scare those unfamiliar with firearms into supporting regulations aimed at undermining the Second Amendment.  For other examples, see “assault weapons,” “Saturday Night Special,” and “Cop Killer Bullets,” just to name a few.

NRA has opposed efforts to expand the federal definition of what is a “firearm,” which is at the heart of the “ghost gun” issue, noting it is little more than a thinly-veiled attempt to outlaw the private manufacture and modification of firearms by law-abiding citizens; a common practice that has existed in this country since BEFORE it was even a country.

More accurately referred to as the “frame or receiver rule,” we voiced objection to the proposed rule when Biden’s Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) first submitted it, and we filed an amicus brief in support of a legal challenge to the final rule that was implemented, with that challenge currently before the US Supreme Court.

Garber, apparently, now agrees with our objections.  He recently implied, when defending his support of the relentless legal challenges to preemption in Pennsylvania, that cases involving so-called “ghost gun” restrictions should succeed because such a case “isn’t about firearms.”

“This (case) is about parts that aren’t preempted…and that…(statute) should be allowed to go ahead,” Garber told Katie Meyer of Spotlight PA.

Whether or not Garber actually believes this claim or understands its significance to the “ghost gun” franchise of the gun control messaging apparatus is debatable. Nonetheless, his apparent legal strategy would seem to directly oppose the strategy of other anti-gun extremists like Joe Biden, who want unfinished frames or receivers to be treated under the law as if they were functional firearms.

It might be interesting if Garber’s position came up in future legal arguments against the new “frame or receiver” rule imposed by the ATF, and if Biden’s ATF rule were used against preemption challenges Garber supports in Pennsylvania.  Regardless of whether such a scenario comes to pass, we will continue to remain involved—and report significant updates—in court cases in Pennsylvania, the federal courts, or wherever they may arise.

Stay tuned.