pittsburgh lawsuit gun control
Former Pittsburgh Mayor William "Arrest Me" Peduto (AP Photo/Gene J. Puskar)
Previous Post
Next Post

From the Firearms Policy Coalition . . .

Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) and FPC Action Foundation (FPCAF) today announced an appellate victory in FOAC v. Pittsburgh, Penn., a lawsuit filed in 2019 in response to a gun control scheme enacted by the City and its then-Mayor, Bill Peduto. The opinion, filed earlier today, is available at FPCLaw.org.

In April of 2019, Pittsburgh enacted regulations that, among other things, prohibited the “use” of so-called “assault weapons” and “large capacity magazines.” In response, FPC and FPCAF joined with Firearm Owners Against Crime (FOAC) and three individuals to file a legal challenge, represented by attorney Joshua Prince of Civil Rights Defense Firm, P.C. In October of 2019, the trial court ruled in favor of the FOAC plaintiffs and declared the challenged laws “void and unenforceable due to field preemption by the Legislature.”

Throughout the litigation, the City unsuccessfully argued that the ordinances comply with Pennsylvania’s preemption law, which prohibit local governments from “in any manner regulat[ing] 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.” But the appellate Commonwealth Court ultimately disagreed.

“Effectively, the [Assault Weapon] and [Large Capacity Magazine] Ordinances single-out these particular, and presumptively lawful, firearms and firearm accessories for differential treatment and outlaw the manner in which they are ‘used,’ including the act of ‘discharge,’” wrote Judge McCullough for the Court. “Further, the Ordinances in effect regulate the ‘ownership’ and/or ‘possession’ of firearms.” Thus, the Court held, “we affirm the order of the trial court and its conclusion that section 6120(a) of the UFA preempts the Ordinances, section 1102.2 of the AW Ordinance, section 1104.3 of the LCM Ordinance, and section 1107.04 of the ER Ordinance.”

“We are delighted with the Court’s ruling that upholds the rights of Pittsburgh residents and visitors,” said FPC President and FPCAF Chairman, Brandon Combs. “This important victory makes clear that rogue and lawless Pennsylvania municipalities that hate the right to keep and bear arms will not be allowed to run roughshod over the State’s Constitution and laws enacted by the People’s representatives.”

Notably, the City was represented in both the trial and appellate courts by Everytown Law, an anti-rights extremist group funded in part by former New York City mayor and billionaire anti-gun rights activist, Mike Bloomberg, among other government and outside counsel.

Individuals who would like to join the FPC Grassroots Army can sign up at JoinFPC.org. Individuals and organizations wanting to support charitable efforts in support of the restoration of Second Amendment and other natural rights can also make a tax-deductible donation to the FPC Action Foundation. For more on FPC’s lawsuits and other pro-Second Amendment initiatives, visit FPCLegal.org and follow FPC on InstagramTwitterFacebookYouTube.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. Business as usual…..ignore the root problem and blame an inanimate object on your problems! Fooling less people all the time tho!

  2. Good work, non-Pgh’ese Yinzers!

    Next up: Reconstruct urban pro-2A culture in PA, so the disarmist’s lawfare of that kind does not come up again.

  3. The governor of PA addressed this issue with the mayor of Phila in mo uncertain terms…the state makes laws, not municipalities.

  4. Sends a message to other cities who assume they too can use the acts of law breakers to butcher the rights of the law abiding.

    Make no mistake about it…Gun Control manufactures soft targets for criminals who misuse firearms, bricks, bats, knives, motor vehicles, hands, feet, etc.

    When Gun Control orders you to leave your firearm unattended in your locked vehicle while you grocery shop you become a soft target. It is crucial Constitutional Carry prevails in every state.

  5. I’m glad these subversives were put in their place. They never obey our laws themselves. They want to force their own personal laws on the population, laws often made up as they go along. UNBELIEVABLE !!!

  6. That’s great and all but it’s more proof of just how utterly useless the courts are. A city passes a BLATANTLY illegal law, and then we the people have to spend 3 years and hundreds of thousand in legal fees to get it overturned. If the scumbag city officials have any balls they’ll immediately pass the exact same law again because any not? It’s not like there would before any consequences for them and until it’s once again overturned years later the law would be allowed to stand, which accomplishes their goal

  7. What? No post from our three anit-Gun radicals, Albert Hall, dacian, the Dunderhead and Minor MINER49er?

  8. When a city, county, state or Federal entity passes unconstitutional laws, there should be criminal prosecutions against those responsible for these b s laws. Prosecute under civil rights violations or treason against the constitution especially for those that have taken the oath to protect our constitution. Some prison time should cure this problem.

  9. PA was a pro-2A hunting state till the four-eyed corporate wage slave “knowledge workers” moved in to Pittsburgh. And the Governor of Texas wants a high-tech jobs boom in TX. If that happens, TX is toast and so is the 2A. Keep the four eyed code monkeys in the West Coast and the Northeast please.

    Four eyed corporate wage slaves are only good for 1) virtue signaling 2) going on blind dates with their H1B boyfriends

  10. That’s excellent, but it only serves to highlight how completely useless the courts are. When a city passes a law that is blatantly unconstitutional, it takes us, the people, three years and hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal expenses to get it overturned. If the corrupt city council members had any spine, they would quickly adopt the same law once more because why not? It’s not as if they would suffer any penalties beforehand, and the law would be upheld until it was overturned again years later, achieving their purpose.

Comments are closed.