A measure that would open Lancaster city and other municipalities to lawsuits from gun advocates is moving forward in the state Legislature.
Senate Bill 273, first proposed last year as an extension of the "castle doctrine," has been rewritten and reintroduced with language allowing lawsuits against cities, townships and boroughs that attempt to regulate guns.
In the cross hairs of the bill are ordinances passed by Lancaster and 29 other municipalities that require gun owners to report if their gun has been lost or stolen.
Lancaster City Council passed its ordinance in 2009 in an attempt to address illegal gun sales to convicted felons and others who are prohibited from having a gun. After such a "straw man" purchase, the seller might claim the gun had been lost or stolen.
The initiative from municipalities across the state came after the General Assembly failed to pass a statewide measure in 2008.
Along with the 30 municipalities that adopted ordinances, another 19 approved resolutions calling on legislators to pass a state lost-or-stolen gun-reporting law.
Lancaster Mayor Rick Gray, who backed the local initiative, said the bill would invite frivolous lawsuits.
Under the measure, a municipality could be required to pay the legal expenses of and damages to those who file lawsuits against it, even if the municipality repeals its ordinance.
Even if the municipality was successful in court, it would still lose, Gray said, because of the legal costs of defending ordinances.
The bill comes as municipalities across the state are struggling financially, Gray noted.
"The whole idea is to scare municipalities and bludgeon us to keep us from doing anything against illegal guns," the mayor said.
Backers of the measure contend the municipalities are in violation of a state law that gives the Legislature the sole authority to regulate the lawful possession of firearms.
Gray said the key word is "lawful." When a gun is lost or stolen, the person who has it is not in lawful possession of it, he said.
Because of that, Gray said he does not expect Lancaster will repeal its ordinance.
Max Nacheman, director of CeaseFirePA, the gun-control group that promoted the local ordinances, said the bill is likely to pass the House this week. Because it has new language added to a previously passed Senate bill, it likely also will pass the Senate without a hearing.
Some smaller municipalities may be intimidated enough to repeal their ordinances, he said.
Sen. Mike Brubaker, who represents northern Lancaster County, was a cosponsor of the original version of the bill. His name remains attached to the bill with the new language.
Brubaker said the bill goes beyond the lost-or-stolen handgun ordinances. It holds municipalities accountable for any ordinance in which local officials have overstepped their authority, he said.
"I am a gun-rights advocate, and I support the Constitution," Brubaker said. "I don't think we should have local laws in violation of the state law."
He said it also challenges local bans on having guns in municipal parks, which some municipalities have passed. (Gray said no such ban exists in Lancaster.)
Addressing the lost-or-stolen-gun reporting mandate, Brubaker said that previously was debated at length in the Senate.
"Some gun owners will lock their guns in a cabinet — that's where they all ought to be kept. If someone else has access to that key, they may not know that one of those guns is missing for months or years," Brubaker said.
If the gun owner isn't aware that a gun is missing, should they be prosecuted for that? the senator asked.
Gray said the city ordinance requires reporting of a missing gun within 72 hours after it is discovered missing.
"It's a responsibility that comes with a right of having a gun," Gray said.
He maintained responsible gun owners would not object to the requirement.
Gray said his concern is for city police officers who could encounter someone in possession of an illegal handgun.
A third and final House vote on the bill could come Tuesday.
A reconciliation vote would follow in the Senate.
Sen. Lloyd Smucker, another cosponsor of the original bill, said Monday that he was unfamiliar with the added language and could not comment on it.
