## Facts

- Philadelphia enacted a 1993 ordinance restricting certain “assault weapons” within the city.
- The Pennsylvania General Assembly enacted an express firearms preemption statute barring municipalities from regulating the lawful ownership, possession, transfer, or transportation of firearms and ammunition (18 Pa.C.S. § 6120).
- Local officials, ward leaders, civic groups, and others challenged the statute, asserting it exceeded legislative limits and violated municipal authority under the Pennsylvania Constitution, the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter, and the Home Rule Enabling Act.
- The City of Pittsburgh intervened in support of the challengers.
- The challengers sought declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent enforcement of the preemption statute and to preserve local regulation of assault weapons.

## Issues

1. Whether home-rule municipalities may regulate the ownership and possession of “assault weapons” by ordinance when a state statute expressly preempts local firearms regulation.
2. Whether the state firearms preemption statute is invalid under the Pennsylvania Constitution or home-rule provisions (including the Home Rule Enabling Act).

## Decision

- The Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed the order sustaining the Commonwealth’s preliminary objections and dismissing the complaint for failure to state a cause of action.
- The Court held that Philadelphia and Pittsburgh could not regulate assault weapons because the General Assembly expressly preempted local regulation of firearms.
- The Court concluded that firearms regulation is a matter of statewide concern and therefore subject to uniform state control.

## Legal Principles

- Home-rule power under Pa. Const. art. IX, § 2 is subordinate to limitations imposed by the Pennsylvania Constitution and by acts of the General Assembly.
- A home-rule municipality may not legislate in conflict with an express state statute that occupies the field.
- Express preemption under 18 Pa.C.S. § 6120 prohibits municipalities from regulating the lawful ownership, possession, transfer, or transportation of firearms and ammunition.
- Because the right to bear arms is constitutionally protected in Pennsylvania (Pa. Const. art. I, § 21), statewide uniformity in firearms regulation is a legitimate legislative choice that displaces local regulation.
- The Home Rule Enabling Act does not bar the General Assembly from withdrawing municipal authority in areas the legislature deems of statewide concern.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Pennsylvania’s express preemption of local firearms ordinances, ruling that home-rule municipalities lack authority to regulate assault weapons when the General Assembly has reserved firearm regulation to uniform statewide law under 18 Pa.C.S. § 6120.


Ortiz v. Commonwealth, 681 A.2d 152 (Pa. 1996)