Settlement Agreement. In the Settlement Agreement, the City of
Pittsburgh stipulated to the State preemption of local
ordinances and local action regarding firearms generally and
agreed to abide by and adhere to Pennsylvania law.
The provisions of 18 Pa.C.S. § 6120(a) state: "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."
In addition, 53 Pa.C.S. § 2962(g) prohibits municipalities from
"enact[ing] any ordinance or take[ing] any other action dealing
with the regulation of the transfer, ownership, transportation
or possession of firearms."
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Ortiz v. Commonwealth, in
which the City of Pittsburgh was a party, found that both
section 21 of Article I of the Constitution of Pennsylvania and
18 Pa.C.S. § 6120 preempted any regulation of firearms or
ammunition, and declared:
Because the ownership of firearms is constitutionally
protected, its regulation is a matter of statewide
concern. The constitution does not provide that the right
to bear arms shall not be questioned in any part of the
commonwealth except Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, where it
may be abridged at will, but that it shall not be
questioned in any part of the commonwealth. Thus,
regulation of firearms is a matter of concern in all of
Pennsylvania, not merely in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh,
and the General Assembly, not city councils, is the
proper forum for the imposition of such regulation.
Ortiz, 681 A.2d 152, 156 (Pa. 1996)
20190HR0426PN2217 - 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30