Pennsylvania Supreme Court Upholds Laws Barring Cities from Passing Gun Safety Regulations  

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the dismissal of a complaint filed by Pennsylvanians who lost loved ones to gun violence and who had asked the court to invalidate laws that block cities from adopting or enforcing firearm safety laws.

The case, Crawford v. Commonwealth, was a state constitutional challenge to preemption laws barring cities from passing gun safety measures like permit requirements and waiting periods. Under the laws, only the state may regulate guns, leaving municipalities with no authority to implement locally tailored firearm ordinances.  

The plaintiffs included 10 Philadelphians and Pittsburghers whose family members died from gun violence, the city of Philadelphia, and gun-safety organization CeaseFirePA. They argued that the laws led “to the inevitable deaths and injuries of an unconscionable number of Black and Hispanic residents of [Pennsylvania’s] largest cities.” Gun violence kills 1,544 people a year in Pennsylvania. Black Pennsylvanians are 19 times more likely to die by gun homicide than white people in the state, and Hispanic Pennsylvanians have 5 times the risk. 

The lawsuit sought to empower cities to pass gun violence prevention ordinances, such as barring gun purchasers from buying more than one gun per month and requiring a permit for gun purchases. State lawmakers, the plaintiffs claimed,  engaged in “unrelenting hand-tying of municipalities,” “stymie[ing] the types of local changes that would save lives.” 

The plaintiffs said that the state’s restriction on cities’ ability to enact gun safety measures constituted a state act “to create or enhance a danger” — namely, gun violence. The plaintiffs contended that this violated their right to substantive due process under Article I, Section 1 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, which protects “certain inherent and indefeasible rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty.” The plaintiffs also argued that the laws interfered with cities’ constitutional duty to protect residents’ health and safety, as well as their statutory obligation to combat local public health risks.

Although more than 40 states have similar laws preempting local gun regulations, this was the first time a city mounted a state constitutional challenge to those laws based on substantive due process. 

In response, the state and other defendants argued that the laws were a straightforward exercise of Pennsylvania legislators’ authority to enact statewide polices. “A legislature’s policymaking decision to enact a uniform, generally applicable statute followed by a decision not to repeal that enactment cannot possibly constitute a state-created-danger,” they contended. In other words, a substantive due process violation does not arise just because a statute creates some foreseeable harm. In any event, they said, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court already upheld the constitutionality of the laws in 1996 in Ortiz v. Commonwealth. The plaintiffs, however, maintained “that decision addressed a limited challenge on grounds different from those presented here.” 

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court sided with the defendants, rejecting the plaintiffs’ claims that laws preempting local gun regulation violate state constitutional due process. The plaintiffs failed to show that the Pennsylvania due process clause guarantees a collective right to use local regulation as a means of self-defense from gun violence, the court ruled. Because the plaintiffs also failed to satisfy the elements of a federal doctrine permitting relief from state acts that create or increase private dangers, the court declined to decide whether that doctrine is even viable under the state due process clause.

This case was filed in the wake of the 2022 U.S. Supreme Court decision New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which changed the framework for evaluating Second Amendment challenges and made it more difficult for governments to pass gun violence prevention measures. As a result, those who challenge gun control laws have an easier time than before, under a new standard that requires the government to “justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” 

Since Bruen, however, the Court decided United States v. Rahimi, rejecting a challenge to a federal ban on firearm possession by people under domestic violence restraining orders — and signaling there are limits to the right to keep and bear arms. Commentators have noted that Rahimi left open many questions about the scope of gun rights, which state courts will likely be called upon to address. 

Crawford serves as a reminder that battles over gun rights are increasingly playing out in state courts — and sometimes include significant state constitutional questions. 

Hillary Shah is a student at the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School and an intern at the Public Interest Law Center, which represents the plaintiffs in this case. 

 Suggested Citation: Hillary Shah, Pennsylvania Supreme Court Upholds Laws Barring Cities from Passing Gun Safety Regulations, Sᴛᴀᴛᴇ Cᴏᴜʀᴛ Rᴇᴘᴏʀᴛ (Oct. 12, 2023; updated Dec. 10, 2024), https://statecourtreport.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/pennsylvania-supreme-court-weighs-whether-cities-can-pass-gun-safety-laws.