Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 01/15/2026 9:07:01 PM PST by lightman
A court ruled on Thursday that a Harrisburg city ordinance allowing the mayor to place restrictions on firearm use and possession during a state of emergency can be challenged even if those parts of the ordinance have never been enforced.
Joshua First, Howard Bullock and Michelle Stolfer, who either lived in or visited Harrisburg during any of the city’s four most recent emergency declarations, have grounds to challenge the ordinance in court, per the order signed by the Commonwealth Court.
The emergency ordinance in question allowed the mayor to declare a state of emergency and choose whether to implement a series of restrictions on the sale, transfer and display of firearms and ammunition in the city.
When enacted, the mayor also had authority to prevent civilians from possessing a rifle or shotgun in a public place, as well as prevent possession of weapons such as firearms, bows and arrows, air rifles, slingshots, knives, razors, blackjacks, bill clubs or missiles of any kind in a public place or park.
While states of emergency have been declared in 2011, 2016, 2020, and 2024, in practice, no mayor has ever implemented the firearm possession restrictions.
The three, represented by the organization Firearm Owners Against Crime, originally sued the city in 2015, seeking a ruling that five ordinances that restricted firearm possession in the city were unconstitutional.
They said the ordinances forced them to “decide whether to violate the (emergency ordinance), forfeit their rights to comply with the ordinances, or avoid the City altogether,” the court’s opinion said.
They also sought a ruling that Pennsylvania law prohibited municipalities like Harrisburg from restricting the lawful use, possession or transfer of firearms.
The three argued they feared being prosecuted for firing their guns to defend themselves in an otherwise legally justified situation while in Harrisburg.
The case has taken so long to resolve because it endured multiple appeals that led to the Commonwealth Court trouncing its own precedent that previously only allowed the court to review a law after it had been enforced against someone. The state Supreme Court narrowly upheld the ruling.
Dauphin County Judge Andrew Dowling ruled in September 2024 that four out of five of the ordinances had been pre-empted by Pennsylvania law — a ruling that meant the ordinances could not stand.
Those ordinances restricted firing firearms in the city to firing ranges attached to schools (adopted in 1821); prohibited minors from possessing firearms while unaccompanied by an adult (1951); required firearm owners to report lost or stolen firearms to law enforcement within 48 hours (2009), and prohibited firing a gun within the city’s parks (1905).
But he opined he could not rule on the fifth, the emergency declaration ordinance (adopted in 1969), because there was no evidence the firearm restrictions had ever been enacted in the city during a state of emergency — which meant the three didn’t have standing to sue over it.
Additionally, although the ordinance was on the books, its provisions restricting firearm use were not in effect.
If Harrisburg ever tried to enforce the firearm prohibitions in the emergency ordinance, Dowling wrote, he found Pennsylvania law would override it.
To sue someone in court, a plaintiff has to show they have been wronged or aggrieved in some way. But the case held a staggered start because none of the ordinances had ever been enforced against First, Bullock or Stolfer.
Unless Harrisburg appeals the Commonwealth Court’s ruling, the case will drift back down to Dauphin County court, where Dowling will make a new ruling on the emergency ordinance, or the three plaintiffs will have to file a motion seeking a new ruling.
Because Dowling already wrote that state law pre-empts the emergency ordinance, Dillon Harris, the plaintiffs’ attorney, said he expected Dowling to expand his prior order to enjoin the city from enforcing the emergency ordinance.
Harrisburg has a 30-day window to appeal the order, and if it does, the case will be sent to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which may or may not choose to review the Commonwealth Court’s decision.
“They’re thrilled, unsurprisingly. This has gone on quite long enough,” Harris said.
It’s unclear how much Harrisburg has spent defending the lawsuit over the past 11 years. Harris said it’s unlikely his clients will be able to claim attorneys’ fees from taxpayers.
|
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
Never ceases to amaze how the big egos of politicians and beaurocrats will squander taxpayer monies defending the indefensible rather than admitting error.
rkba ping.
Pennsylvania Ping!
Please ping me with articles of interest.
FReepmail me to be added to the list.
I do not have a billy club, but I do have a tire thumper.
During a State of Emergency is the time when citizens need to protect themselves the most.
Second Amendment ping!
How are any restrictions even legal under the PA Constitution Article I?
§ 21. Right to bear arms.
The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.
§ 25. Reservation of powers in people.
To guard against transgressions of the high powers which we have delegated, we declare that everything in this article is excepted out of the general powers of government and shall forever remain inviolate.
When there is an emergency, is when i want my firearm the most. Other than that i always carry a firearm.
Re: “ Never ceases to amaze how the big egos of politicians …”
Never cease to amaze me how Citizens just roll over and comply with Public SERVANTS when it comes to their RKBA. Both Federal and PA Constitution are clear on it.
Awesome that these folks fought it and won.
PA has Pre-emption law. Municipalities must comply with State law. Period. Fini. End of discussion… these politicians just don’t or won’t get it.
But for whatever reason, we keep electing them.
Thanks for posting this, Lightman.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.