CPRC in the news over the first court case testing Pennsylvania’s new firearms preemption law

Here is a statement by plaintiff Justin McShane on the Harrisburg court case

There was a trial court hearing in Harrisburg this morning on whether a preliminary injunction should be granted in a suit to force Harrisburg to follow state firearm laws.  The hearing went well with Justin McShane, a lawyer in Harrisburg one of the plaintiffs arguing the case for his side.  John Lott was an expert for plaintiff McShane, though in the end his testimony wasn’t necessary (McShane noted: “The simple fact that you were there kept the Mayor and the Chief off the stand and did not allow the judge to go far afield from his mandate. You were essential.“).  Below is also a piece that Lott had in the Harrisburg Patriot News.

The Harrisburg Patriot News (Pennsylvania’s Capitol) had this summary of the events:

. . . How Judge Andrew H. Dowling will rule has yet to be seen. What is certain is that the rhetoric surrounding the battle shows no signs of abating.

That was evident immediately after a 90-minute court hearing Dowling held Friday on requests to either bar the city temporarily from enforcing its gun ordinances, or to stay action on the case pending a wider state court decision on the issue.

During an impromptu press conference, Mayor Eric Papenfuse said, essentially, that the plaintiffs suing the city are merely money-seeking shills for the gun lobby.

“These ordinances are in the interest of public safety,” the mayor said. “That’s why we’re fighting so hard to defend them.”

Moments later, attorney Justin McShane, one of those plaintiffs, said city officials don’t have the best interests of the city’s residents in mind as they rack up legal fees contesting the case. The only thing really standing in the way of a settlement is the hubris of Harrisburg’s leaders, McShane said. . . .

Friday’s hearing dealt only with three relatively narrow issues of the Harrisburg battle. One issue is a request by the city to stay action on the U.S. Law Shield suit until Commonwealth Court rules on whether Act 192, the law that allows such suits, is unconstitutional. Another is the city’s argument that the plaintiffs lack legal standing to sue the city.

Simultaneously, McShane and his allies are asking Dowling to grant a temporary injunction to bar the city from enforcing its gun ordinances while the local lawsuit is fought out.

McShane argued during the hearing that allowing the contested city laws to remain in force during the legal fight is causing irreparable harm by depriving legal gun owners of their rights to carry weapons in Harrisburg, especially for self-defense. That, he said, is posing a “harm to my personal freedom.” . . .

City attorney Joshua Autry countered that the ordinances aren’t impairing anyone’s rights, but are in the interest of public welfare. Nothing in the city’s laws bars anyone from using a legally-owned gun to legitimately defend themselves, he said.

And the Third Class City Code, a state statute, allows the city to pass such gun regulations, Autry argued.. . .

In connection with the hearing, John Lott wrote a piece in the Harrisburg Patriot News (Pennsylvania’s Capitol).  The piece starts this way:

For 40 years, Pennsylvania law was clear: “No county, municipality, or township may in any manner regulate the lawful ownership, possession, transfer or transportation of firearms, ammunition or ammunition components.”

Many local governments, however, decided that the rules didn’t apply to them.

Today, a trial court hears the first case — a suit against Harrisburg — regarding this violation of state law.

The case will likely have implications for gun control laws in Philadelphia and the rest of the state and determine whether local governments must follow state laws.

Last year, the state legislature took a leaf out of the Environmental Protection Agency’s enforcement book.  Just as individuals can sue companies that illegally pollute waterways, Pennsylvanians can now sue local governments for disobeying state laws.

Under Act 192, citizens can challenge a local gun law even if they are not personally affected by it.

Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane, a Democrat, has been extremely selective in choosing which state restrictions to enforce against local governments.

She won’t be defending Act 192 in court.

Letting Pennsylvanians sue holds local governments accountable. But isn’t challenging local gun regulations different from enforcing EPA regulations?  No, both involve people’s lives and safety being at stake.. . .