By Christine Vendel
HARRISBURG – Harrisburg city officials are weighing their options after a judge struck down three of their gun ordinances as illegal under the state’s Uniform Firearms Act.
Mayor Eric Papenfuse said they have not decided whether to appeal the ruling of Dauphin County Andrew H. Dowling, who issued a preliminary injunction Wednesday preventing the city from enforcing gun ordinances that forbid the carrying of guns: in city parks, during state emergencies and by unaccompanied minors.
But the ruling left in place two other gun ordinances, which Papenfuse said were the most important ones for public safety: the prohibition against discharging a gun in the city and the requirement that gun owners report lost or stolen guns.
“Both of those have been effective public safety tools for police,” Papenfuse said. “So we are ecstatic those were kept in place.”
The ruling is a temporary measure to address the city’s ordinances while a lawsuit filed by the U.S. Law Shield gun rights group works its way through the court system. The judge will eventually make a final ruling that could differ from the preliminary injunction after hearing full arguments from both sides.
“This is just the first step in a long process,” Papenfuse said.
He said the scene will now shift to the Commonwealth Court where a judge is considering the constitutionality of the new state law that allows gun rights groups like U.S. Law Shield, which is based in Texas, to sue Harrisburg. Arguments are set to begin in April.
The law, known as Act 192, allows any gun owner to sue any municipality over its gun ordinances and seek reimbursement for legal fees.
Justin McShane, the attorney representing U.S. Law Shield, said he has already racked up nearly $100,000 in legal fees, a figure Papenfuse called “ridiculous.”
“The city’s legal costs are a very small fraction of that,” he said.
If Act 192 is found unconstitutional, which is what Papenfuse believes will happen, he said McShane will not get to collect any legal fees.
“We really need to determine whether Act 192 is constitutional,” he said. “The judge presumed in this case today that the law was constitutional, but that has not decided any of the underlying legal issues. The city has much more evidence it that can put on and additional arguments it can make.”
Although McShane claimed victory with Wednesday’s ruling, Papenfuse considered it a “split opinion,” with positive aspects for the city.
“I don’t think either side can declare victory,” he said. “This was not an exhaustively researched legal opinion. There are other aspects the judge did not rule on.”
Our Clients are entitled to a Bill of Rights which states:
- Our clients have the right to expect, we will be proactive in communication. You will hear it from us first. We will return all phone calls, texts and emails promptly.
- Our clients have the right to expect plain speaking, straight shooting. No B. S.
- Our clients have the right to expect us to do it right the first time, every time.
- Our clients have the right to expect us to be on time and professionally prepared for all court appearances, and all meetings.
- Our clients have the right to expect that they will be fully informed at all times.
This is our promise to you. Call today to get us on your side: (717) 657-3900.
