Popular guns

James Robinson, PennLive.com

A federal judge has granted a partial victory to Harrisburg officials by significantly cutting, but not completely killing, a lawsuit by a gun owner's group challenging five of the city's controversial gun ordinances.



U.S. Middle District Judge Yvette Kane ruled that the Firearm Owners Against Crime lacks legal standing to challenge three of the ordinances - a ban on gun possession by minors, a requirement to report gun thefts and a law that allows the mayor to restrict gun possession and display during a civil disturbance - in federal court.



Kane also found the group seems to lack standing to sue over two more ordinances that bar gun possession in city parks and prohibit the discharge of firearms in the city, except at firing ranges. However, she is giving the group a chance to amend its suit to further address the standing issue on those two ordinances.



The decision Kane issued this week comes months after Commonwealth Court ruled unconstitutional a state law, Act 192, that spurred a flurry of lawsuits against Pennsylvania municipalities, including Lancaster, Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, that have gun restriction laws. Act 192 allowed any legal gun owner to sue municipalities over their gun regulations and to force the governments to pay their legal fees.

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2015/06/commonwealth_court_act_192_unc.html



An appeal of the June 2015 Commonwealth Court decision to void Act 192 is pending before the state Supreme Court. The justices heard arguments in that case earlier this month but have not yet issued any rulings.



The Firearms Owners Against Crime suit was one of two suits that contested Harrisburg's gun ordinances under Act 192. It started out in Dauphin County Court, but city officials moved the case to Kane's court, claiming the group's argument involved constitutional rights issues, particularly the right to bear arms.

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2015/01/harrisburg_gun_ordinances_act.html



In her ruling, Kane found the gun owners group lacks standing to mount a federal challenge because it hasn't shown its members have suffered any "concrete" harm from the city ordinances. She rejected the group's claim that it is suffering harm because the risk of being prosecuted under the ordinances casts a "chilling effect" over its members' gun ownership rights.



She noted, for example, that state laws already bars minors from possessing guns, except when they are hunting or under adult supervision. Nor has the group shown that any gun owner has been prosecuted by city officials for not reporting a stolen firearm, Kane observed.



As for the ordinance that gives the mayor special powers in crises, the judge pointed to a state law which makes it illegal for anyone to carry a firearm on public streets or property during an emergency declared by a municipal or state government.



