PRESTON COVEY and                                       CIVIL DIVISION
ALLEGHENY COUNTY
SPORTSMEN'S LEAGUE,                                     No. GD 94-1499

         Plaintiffs,

   v.                                                   OPINION

CITY OF PITTSBURGH,                                     Filed on Behalf of

        Defendant.                                      THE HONORABLE JOSEPH M. JAMES

                                                        Counsel of Record;

                                                        C. Robert Keenan, III, Esquire
                                                        Howard J. Schulberq, Esquire


                                         
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA


PRESTON COVEY and ALLEGHENY
COUNTY SPORTSMEN'S LEAGUE,

         Plaintiffs                                         No. GD 94-1499

    vs.

CITY OF PITTSBURGH,

        Defendant.


                           OPINION

JAMES, J.

    The original lawsuit in this matter was filed in 1994 as a 
    
challenge to the validity of a City of Pittsburgh ordinance that 

was described as a ban on assault weapons. This court entered an

order on February 27, 1995, that settled the dispute. As a part of 

that settlement, the parties agreed to the following stipulations:

    1)  Pennsylvania law preempts local action regarding
    firearms generally, and;

    2) all parties agree to abide and adhere to Pennsylvania
    law.

    On August 30, 1994, the City of Pittsburgh applied to the

United States Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance,

for a grant of Federal. tax money. Among other goals, one portion

of the grant was to be used to track and register all legally owned

firearms within the City of Pittsburgh.

                        PAGE 1

    The plaintiffs, on December 29, 1995, filed a motion to

enforce the settlement of February 27, 1995, and this matter was

argued before this court on February 14, 1996.

    Although plaintiff filed an extensive memorandum of law, the

City chose to file no responsive memorandum but filed a response to

motion to enforce settlement. On February 28, 1996, this court

notified the City that the decision in this matter would be delayed

(at their request) for two weeks to allow the parties a reasonable

period of time to resolve this dispute. When no resolution was

forthcoming, despite the passage of eight weeks, this court entered

an order on May 7, 1996, The City was ordered to terminate the

grant application to the United States Department of Justice,

Bureau of Justice Assistance, known as Application No. 4-1992-PA-

DD. This appeal followed that order.

    There has been much rhetoric surrounding this simple case.

Both parties point to both the Second Amendment of the United

States Constitution (commonly referred to as the right to bear

arms) and the less publicized section of the Pennsylvania

Constitution Article I, Section 21, which states

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

However, this court need not reach these State and Federal



                        PAGE  2


Constitutional questions. This dispute is controlled by the less

glamorous legal concept of preemption.

    Plaintiffs' contend that the regulation of firearms has been

preempted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The Uniform

Firearms Act reads:

         Nothing in this Chapter shall be construed to
         allow any government or law enforcement agency
         or any agent thereof to create, maintain or
         operate any registry of firearms ownership
         within this Commonwealth.

18 Pa. C.S.A. SS6111.4

Further, The Uniform Firearms Act states that "No municipality may

in any manner regulate the lawful ownership, possession, transfer,

or transportation of firearms". 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 6120 (a)

    The question of whether §6120 preempts any City regulation or

registration of firearms has already been answered. The City of

Philadelphia enacted an ordinance that regulated the acquisition of

firearms within the City. A class action was brought against the

City, arguing that the regulation of firearms was a matter of

statewide concern and that only state legislation in this area

would be valid and enforceable. The Commonwealth Court stated "We

believe that this statute (§6120) clearly preempts local

governments from regulating the lawful ownership, possession and

transportation of firearms." Schneck v. City of Philadelphia, 34



                     PAGE 3


Pa. Cmmwlth. 96, 383 A.2d 227, 230 (1978)

    The City argues that the stipulation to settle the original

lawsuit has no applicability to the grant sought by the City.

However, the grant in question, which was attached to plaintiffs'

motion to enforce settlement, clearly calls for the creation of a

registry of all guns purchased or licensed within Allegheny County.

Such a registry would be in conflict with 18 Pa. C.S.A. §6111.4,

which specifically reserved to the Commonwealth the right to

create, maintain or operate any registry of firearm ownership.

    The parties entered into a stipulation that acknowledged state

preemption of local ordinances and local action regarding firearms.

The stipulation also stated that all parties agreed to abide by and

adhere to Pennsylvania law. The portion of the grant that calls

for the creation of a gun registry is a violation of the

stipulation. Plaintiffs' motion to enforce the stipulation is

granted and the City of Pittsburgh is enjoined from seeking the

grant in question. An appropriate order has been entered.


                            BY THE COURT,


                           Joseph M. James


                        PAGE  4