Firearm Laws question, it's scary.

**Netgyver** · July 10th, 2010, 02:46 AM

Ok, So I got my shiny copy of the brown book called "Pennsylvania Laws Relating To Firearms" from my senators office and began to read it. I know I should have got this when I got my permit, but the Sheriff didn't have any at the time.

Anyway, I found a rather scary law that I am concerned about. With all this hoopla about cities passing ordinances that directly fly in the face of PA's constitution, and premption laws, I scratched my head when I came across this.

1931, P.L. 932, No. 317, Paragraph 2403
(for those of you who have the book, it's on page 20 of the Feb. 23, 2009
revisioned copy)

Specific Powers [of third class cities]

In addition to other powers granted by [the Third Class City Code], the council of each city shall have power, by ordinance:

26. Regulate Guns, Et Cetera -- To regulate, prohibit, and prevent the discharge of guns, rockets, powder, or any other dangerous instruments or combustible material within the city, and to prevent the carrying of concealed deadly weapons.

----

Checking the previous census stats, the only city that reaches Third Class status is Pittsburgh, which has about 310,037 people. No other city is in this class, population-wise. 210,000-499,999 is the populaton range for Third Class status.

So, under this clause in PA firearm law, Could the city of Pittsbugh pass an ordinance banning the carry of concealed deadly weapons? It reads like Pittsburgh can under this clause.

I'm just curious if I am reading it wrong, or is there is a contradiction in laws here? I thought it was illegal for municipalities to pass ordinances like this due to PA's premption law.

can anyone educate me on this?

**GunLawyer001** · July 10th, 2010, 03:13 AM

Later laws supersede earlier laws. Statewide preemption of local firearms laws supersedes an earlier general grant of powers. Cities can't regulate the carry of firearms, but they can enact ordinances like Philadelphia did, prohibiting most carrying of knives.

**ViperGTS19801** · July 10th, 2010, 11:23 AM

"Shall not be infringed."

It's pretty clear the way it SHOULD be. The way it acually is, on the other hand, is a different story.

**ShooterInPA1** · July 10th, 2010, 09:01 PM

Originally Posted by ViperGTS19801

"Shall not be infringed."

It's pretty clear the way it SHOULD be. The way it acually is, on the other hand, is a different story.

Indeed!

The intent of the FOunding Fathers was perfectly clear for anyone who wants to see:

Thomas Jefferson: "The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."