Crawford v. Commonwealth (Philadelphia's Authority to Regulate Firearms) (2024)

Summary:

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court unanimously held that two state laws—the Pennsylvania Uniform Firearms Act of 1995 and the Home Rule Charter and Option Plans Law—precluded local government attempts to restrict gun ownership, transportation, possession, or transfer. In so holding, the state’s top court recognized the General Assembly’s preeminent role as policymaking body for the commonwealth.

The Verdict:

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court demonstrated restraint in declining to question the policymaking judgment of the General Assembly. If local governments truly wish to regulate the sale and use of firearms, they will have to convince the General Assembly to revise its policy of regulatory uniformity.

Background:

Crawford is a public interest case spearheaded by the Public Interest Law Center (PILC). PILC’s stated goal is to allow local governments to restrict the sale and usage of firearms. The case began in the original jurisdiction of the Commonwealth Court, where Crawford and other petitioners sought a declaratory judgment that statewide gun laws violated the state constitution and deprived Philadelphia of its ability to maintain order and safety within city limits.

The Commonwealth Court sustained the preliminary objections to PILC’s petition after determining that the legal claims lacked merit. The Commonwealth Court reasoned that it was the province of the General Assembly to determine how best to protect individuals from gun violence, and there was a rational basis for this and the General Assembly’s desire for uniformity across the commonwealth.

Justice Brobson’s majority opinion concluded: “we affirm the order of the Commonwealth Court dismissing the Petition with prejudice.”

Opinions:

Majority Opinion (Hon. P. Kevin Brobson, joined by Chief Justice Debra Todd with the Hon. Christine Donohue, Hon. Kevin M. Dougherty, Hon. David N. Wecht, and Hon. Sallie Updyke Mundy)