GOA Takes Challenge to Philly’s ‘Ghost Gun’ Ban to Pennsylvania Supreme Court

The state of Pennsylvania has a preemption law on the books.

The problem, though, is that Pittsburgh and Philadelphia think that the law doesn’t actually apply to them. They’ve both created their own gun control laws and basically begged for someone to challenge them.

Which has happened and they have generally lost.

However, Philly’s ban on so-called ghost guns hasn’t quite worked out the same way. The last ruling wasn’t on the side of the angels, if we’re being honest, but Gun Owners of America isn’t done fighting.

From a press release:

Gun Owners of America (GOA) and Gun Owners Foundation (GOF), together with several individual gun owners, are pleased to announce that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has granted our petition for allowance of appeal. This means that the Pennsylvania high court will now hear our challenge to the City of Philadelphia’s unconstitutional ban on the private manufacture of firearms. 

GOA’s lawsuit challenges Philadelphia’s ordinance that restricts the manufacturing of firearms, components, and attachments for personal use.  We argue that the ban violates Pennsylvania’s preemption statute, the Uniform Firearms Act (UFA), along with infringing Article I, Section 21 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, which guarantees the right to bear arms. 

Philadelphia’s ordinance, which prohibits the private manufacturing of firearms through processes like 3D printing or completing unfinished firearm frames, directly contradicts state law, which preempts all local firearm regulations. GOA’s petition argued that the Philly ordinance infringes upon the constitutional right to self-defense and violates the UFA, which gives the General Assembly exclusive power to regulate firearms. 

We will now be asking the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to reverse the Commonwealth Court’s decision (which upheld the ordinance), and confirm that the UFA broadly preempts Philadelphia’s ordinance, restoring the uniform protection of the right to keep and bear arms across Pennsylvania. 

Erich Pratt, Senior Vice President of GOA, issued the following statement: 

“Philadelphia’s efforts to regulate firearm manufacturing go against the core of Pennsylvania’s firearm preemption law and violate the rights of its citizens. With the Pennsylvania Supreme Court now agreeing to hear this case, we are hopeful that Pennsylvanians’ rights will be protected from Philadelphia’s unconstitutional tyranny at the local level.” 

Sam Paredes, on behalf of Gun Owners Foundation, added:  

“This is a critical moment for gun owners across Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision to take up this case shows the importance of safeguarding our enumerated right to keep and bear arms. Philadelphia’s overreach needs to be stopped, and we believe the Court will uphold the law and protect citizens’ rights.” 

Honestly, even without preemption, this should get tossed.

First, it’s a local law, not a state law, meaning there are no felony penalties involved. That means that as a deterrence, it means jack squat to criminals in the city and will only prevent the law-abiding from doing it. Since the law-abiding aren’t the problem in the first place, I fail to see how it would do any good.

Beyond that, though, there’s the fact that the Second Amendment is the law of the land. The Bruen decision established clear parameters on what kind of gun laws could be considered constitutional, namely those that existed when the Second Amendment was ratified.

Guess what anyone could do lawfully around that time? If you said, “Make their own guns,” then give yourself a cookie. They most definitely could do so. If the Founding Fathers had an issue with that, they’d have addressed it.

They didn’t, so guess what? Philadelphia’s law is unconstitutional.

Currently, the challenge is on preemption grounds, which is probably a smart place to go for right now, and the courts have generally upheld preemption as constitutional, so I don’t think Philly is going to like this result.

Which is fine. They can stay mad, but they have to comply, and that’s what matters.