311 A.3d 72
Pa. Commw. Ct.2024Background
- The City of Philadelphia enacted an ordinance prohibiting the making, possession, use, or sale of certain firearm parts and "ghost guns" (privately made, untraceable firearms).
- Gun Owners of America and individual plaintiffs challenged the ordinance, arguing it was preempted by state law and violated constitutional rights.
- The trial court denied a permanent injunction against the City, holding the ordinance was not preempted by Section 6120(a) of the Uniform Firearms Act and did not violate the Pennsylvania Constitution.
- Plaintiffs appealed to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.
- The majority of the Commonwealth Court affirmed the trial court, holding the City’s ordinance did not regulate “firearms” as defined by state law and was therefore not preempted.
- There were concurring/dissenting opinions arguing that the ordinance was preempted because it effectively regulated firearms and their components.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Section 6120(a) preempts local regulation of gun parts/components | State law preempts all local firearm-related regulation, including components. | Ordinance regulates components, not firearms, and so is not preempted. | Not preempted; ordinance does not regulate firearms per se. |
| Whether the ordinance conflicts with state law | Ordinance bans private firearm manufacturing, conflicting with state law rights. | The ordinance only targets materials, not actual firearms or ownership. | No conflict; ordinance avoids preemption by careful drafting. |
| Whether the ordinance violates PA Constitution Art. I, § 21 | Right to bear arms includes right to possess parts and self-manufacture firearms. | Ordinance is a permissible regulation; constitutional arguments inadequately briefed. | Argument waived for insufficient briefing. |
| Whether federal licensing requirement is unattainable and thus a de facto ban | Impossible for private individuals to obtain federal license; ordinance is thus a ban. | Licensing requirement is consistent with federal and local law. | Argument waived for insufficient briefing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ortiz v. Commonwealth, 681 A.2d 152 (Pa. 1996) (held state law preempts local regulation of firearms ownership, possession, transfer, or transportation)
- Clarke v. House of Representatives, 957 A.2d 361 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (reaffirmed broad preemption of local gun regulation)
- Firearm Owners Against Crime v. City of Pittsburgh, 276 A.3d 878 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2022) (found local ordinances preempted if they relate to field of firearm regulation in any way)
- City of Philadelphia v. Armstrong, 271 A.3d 555 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2022) (affirmed General Assembly’s exclusive authority on firearms regulation)