Philadelphia councilmen sue state

Umnhhh....

In general terms, I like the theory of "subsidiarity" which used to be found (e.g.) in the 9th/10th Amendments to the Constitution.

Briefly, it states that the lowest possible level of governance should control particular issues, as that level of government is de facto most familiar with them.

So when Philly wants to restrict gun-ownership, the State should allow them to do so.

The exceptions should be straightforward--e.g., when a licensed gun-holder travels THROUGH Philly, or carries to/from his place of business IN Philly, etc.

More broadly, school districts should not be ordered by a State to spend X (or NOT spend X) for particular programs.

It's why we actually have civic governments.

Can't speak for the state laws of Pennsylvania, but in the federal system (particularly the DC District Court) they probably don't have standing to sue. We defended a case in the DC District Court about 10 years ago where a couple of individual "local gov't" council members sued our federal agency client for various alleged wrong-doings. The good and learned judge dismissed that suit for lack of standing in about 30 days.

I might (emphasis on "might") buy that argument allowing Philadelphia to prohibit firearm possession by residents within the city, if the same argument were were accepted to allow Malvern, King or Prussia or Willow Grove to allow merchants to sell machine guns and short barreled shotguns to any man, woman or child who walks through their doors without any background check, waiting period or permit of any sort. Until then, I'll just file it under the heading of sophistry.

So when Philly wants to restrict gun-ownership, the State should allow them to do so.

Umm... no. The state constitution says:

The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

It does not say:

The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned except by Philadelphia.

So, no, the state's preemption is entirely appropriate. And the above was actually said by our Supreme Court in Ortiz vs. Commonwealth:

Because the ownership of firearms is constitutionally protected, its regulation is a matter of statewide concern. The constitution does not provide that the right to bear arms shall not be questioned in any part of the commonwealth, except Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, where it may be abridged at will, but that it shall not be questioned in any part of the commonwealth. Thus, regulation of firearms is a matter of concern in all of Pennsylvania, not merely in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, and the General Assembly, not city councils, is the proper forum for the imposition of such regulation.

The really amusing thing about Ortiz is that the city tried to argue that because open carry required a license in the city, while open carry was legal in the rest of the state, that the UFA was not, in fact, uniform, and therefore was invalid.

The court rejected that argument, but I always thought it would be amusing if the court agreed with them, throw out the open carry requiring a license in Philadelphia and declare "Well, it's uniform now. That should please the city council."