Even someone with the most cursory knowledge of how the U.S. works should understand the basic principles of federalism. Federal law supersedes state law, and state law is preeminent over local law.
And the Constitution reigns supreme.
On Wednesday, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court sounded the death knell for Philadelphia’s misguided attempts to eradicate the Second Amendment within city limits. The 6-0 unanimous decision struck down the municipality’s firearm preemption laws (FPLs), which were aimed at severely curbing gun rights.
These actions included requiring citizens to obtain a permit simply to purchase a weapon, limiting the number of firearms that may be legally purchased and local “red flag” laws.
The city also attempted to ban so-called “assault weapons” after the Tree of Life mass shooting in 2018.
Philadelphia challenged the state’s preemption laws, intended to maintain constitutional freedoms across Pennsylvania. The judges clearly rejected the plaintiff’s arguments in Crawford v. Commonwealth.
In the words of Justice Brobson, “Appellants have failed to state a legally cognizable claim that the FPLs are unconstitutional or otherwise infirm on the asserted grounds that: (1) the FPLs violate substantive due process; (2) the FPLs violate the state-created danger doctrine; and (3), the FPLs interfere with Philadelphia’s delegated duties under the LHAL and DPCL.”
Anti-gun plaintiffs filed suit against the Speaker of the House and the Senate Majority Leader in their attempt to validate the city’s controversial gun control stance.
It was half a century ago when elected officials determined that gun laws should be uniform across the Keystone State. By statute, the General Assembly has the sole authority to pass laws governing the possession, sale and use of firearms.
The Pennsylvania Uniform Firearms Act, enacted in 1974, sought to eradicate a patchwork quilt of competing gun laws and guarantee constitutional liberties statewide.
It was expanded multiple times to ensure that law-abiding citizens may continue exercising the right to keep and bear arms with minimal government interference.
Brobson agreed that there is a significant crime issue in Pennsylvania but warned that violating state law is not the answer. “There is also no doubt that a serious problem exists in this Commonwealth relative to gun violence and its impacts on our citizenry.”
He also acknowledged the validity of concerns that elected officials are not doing enough to solve the violent crime epidemic.
However, Brobson and his colleagues on the bench correctly determined that it is not the court’s role to enact a legislative response to crime. Instead, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court stayed in its lane and based its decision on the rule of law.
The plaintiffs argued that preemption laws violate citizens’ rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and that the legal uniformity of constitutional protections poses a danger to Philadelphia residents and public health.
The lower Commonwealth Court previously ruled in favor of the state preemption laws, determining that plaintiffs did not present a case within its purview.
That decision was appealed to the state Supreme Court, which brought the hammer down on the City of Brotherly Love this week.
It is refreshing to see the judiciary limit itself to its boundaries. All too often, activist judges attempt to legislate from the bench, which makes a mockery of the sacred principle of separation of powers.
The Supreme Court acknowledged that Pennsylvania has a violent crime problem and that elected officials should seek solutions to safeguard the public. However, those solutions may not include violating the law in the name of public safety or health, and it is up to authorities to determine ways to address illegal activities while upholding constitutional rights.
The Anti Anti-2A Social Club is more than a name—it’s a stand against misinformation, double standards, and the relentless attacks on our rights. It’s for those who are done being quiet and ready to push back against a narrative that seeks to misrepresent and marginalize us.
They say the first step to solving a problem is admitting there is one. But here’s the thing: we’re not trying to “solve” anything. We’re here to embrace our rights, to stand firm, and to protect what’s ours.
This isn’t just another t-shirt; it’s a symbol of defiance and a call to action for everyone who refuses to be silenced. The Anti Anti-2A Social Club T-shirts, hats, and drinkware represent a movement that knows our rights are non-negotiable and proudly defends them.
So click the link below and wear it with pride. Because being part of the Anti Anti-2A Social Club isn’t just a choice—it’s a badge of honor.
