Gun rights advocates got a monumental boost last week when the

ruled local governments can’t ban guns.

Now, Pennsylvania gun rights advocates are aiming at their next target: giving gun owners the right to fire rather than flee when threatened in their homes or cars or, ideally, any public place where they have a right to be.

The court decision gives new energy to the push for a so-called “castle doctrine” in Pennsylvania.

In the case of a home intrusion, the castle doctrine would allow people to shoot immediately, rather than first go to another room.

“I can tell you we’re having meetings right now to have this thing moved,” said state Sen. Richard Alloway II, R-Franklin County, who had previously introduced a castle doctrine bill.

Gun rights advocates further feel the ruling adds firepower to their challenges of assorted gun restrictions, such as

.

“It really galvanizes a position that many of use have been advocating ... that our right to bear arms is a right that is second to none,” said state Rep. Daryle Metcalfe, R-Butler County.

On the other side of the issue, supporters of gun restrictions must brace for an onslaught of challenges to local laws enacted in response to gun-related crime.

“The worst-case scenario is we are getting ready to enter a period of protracted litigation and unnecessary expense in defending a local community’s ability to do something about a problem that has gotten out of hand,” said state Rep. W. Curtis Thomas, D-Philadelphia.

Unpredictable impact

has supported allowing municipalities to devise their own gun restrictions in response to local problems.

Asked to comment on the impact of the Supreme Court decision, Rendell said through a spokesman, “it’s not clear whether reasonable regulations will be allowed to stand, so it’s hard to predict the impact.”

The Supreme Court decision focused specifically on Chicago and nearby Oak Park, which each ban handguns within their boundaries.

It ruled the Second Amendment provides a “fundamental right” to own a gun, and that right can’t be restricted by local governments.

As a result, the Chicago and Oak Park bans, which had been upheld by a lower court, now go back to that court, where they are expected to fall.

Chicago officials reacted by quickly passing a new law requiring registration and permits for handguns, as well as five hours of training, and limiting registrations to one gun per month. The guns aren’t allowed outside the home.

On Tuesday, four citizens filed a lawsuit against the city, saying the law violates their Second Amendment rights.

Still, the Supreme Court ruling seems to allow for local governments to impose some limitations on the right to keep and bear arms.

In the majority opinion, Justice Samuel Alito wrote that the Second Amendment “limits (but by no means eliminates) their ability to devise solutions to social problems that suit local needs and values.”

Following the decision, gun rights organizations such as the National Rifle Association quickly stated their intent to challenge various local gun bans across the country.

“For over 30 years, we’ve had to listen to groups say (gun possession) isn’t an individual right, and now it’s been proven we’re right,” said Kim Stolfer, chairman of Firearms Owners Against Crime, a Pennsylvania group that opposes restricting the gun rights of non-criminals.

Still, bans such as the one in Chicago don’t exist in Pennsylvania.

An 'open-carry' state

Pennsylvania is an “open-carry” state, meaning any adult, non-criminal can openly carry a loaded gun. A license is required to carry a concealed gun.

The only places that open carry isn’t allowed are schools, secure areas of airports, state parks and courthouses.

State law forbids municipalities from passing gun laws that are more strict than state law.

Still, Philadelphia has numerous gun control laws created in response to the city’s high rate of gun violence, and many other municipalities have narrow bans on guns. These include Harrisburg, Camp Hill and several other local municipalities that ban guns from public parks.

Stolfer, 55, a retired postal worker who lives in Allegheny County, believes many Pennsylvania gun restrictions are illegal, especially in light of the new Supreme Court ruling.

He contends the state’s gun laws are riddled with technicalities that can put law-abiding gun owners on the wrong side of the law.

Stolfer opposes most if not all gun bans, even bans of guns in schools.

He argues that existing laws barring minors from owning guns can be used to handle cases of guns in schools.

He further argues that research related to the many gun bans imposed over the years prove they don’t reduce crime.

“Gun free zones do nothing but empower criminals,” he said. “The fact is, gun laws kill, and they have done nothing to protect freedom or safety.”

Stolfer is greatly encouraged by the Supreme Court ruling, which he said clearly affirms that individuals have the right to own guns, and that right can’t be restricted by local individuals crafting policy based on their personal beliefs.

Thomas, the Philadelphia Democrat, sees a dire need for communities to be able to impose gun-related restrictions to deal with local problems such as high rates of illegal guns and gun-related crime.

He said he’s deeply troubled by the Supreme Court’s use of the term “fundamental right” regarding gun ownership. He expects it will become an uphill struggle for communities trying to deal with gun-related problems.

“A lot of these punks think they have a fundamental right to take guns in the streets and defend themselves and do whatever they want to do,” he said.

Still, he stressed that the Supreme Court ruling “left intact a small window for states and local municipalities to take some steps to deal with this proliferation of guns.”

He plans to push to create a state commission that would allow municipalities dealing with major gun-related problems to obtain exemptions to the state law.

Both sides dig in

In Pennsylvania, the gun debate flares up regularly, over a range of proposals.

The NRA has waged a campaign to prevent Pennsylvania from closing the so-called “Florida loophole” that enables people who don’t qualify for a Pennsylvania license to obtain one over the Internet from Florida.

State Rep. Bryan Lentz, D-Delaware County is a leader in the effort to close the loophole.

Lentz expects more challenges of gun laws, but predicts most won’t be affected by the Supreme Court ruling. He expects laws such as Pennsylvania’s requirement of a license to carry a concealed weapon will survive.

Nor does he expect the ruling to hurt the effort to close the loophole.

The gun control debate often shifts to matters related to hunting and gun dealers.

But state Rep Scott Perry, R-York, argues the core reason the founding fathers insisted that citizens have the right to bear arms is so they could “rise up against a government that becomes too powerful.”

He said he’s pleased by the Supreme Court ruling, and hopes it will pave the way, all over the country, for gun policy that better-reflects the intent of the Constitution.

Still, Perry, who sponsored a castle doctrine bill, isn’t expecting gun restrictions to quickly melt away in Pennsylvania.

Rather, he predicts gun rights-related bills will become stuck in committees controlled by legislators who favor restrictions and who now realize, because of the Supreme Court ruling, that the bill is certain to pass if given a vote.

“It’s probably going to make either side just dig in a little harder on the issue,” he said.