Seattle and Pittsburgh: local regulation in the face of intrastate firearms preemption

Mass shooting incidents such as the shooting in Boulder, Colorado that left 11 people dead have drawn attention to the issue of gun violence in America. The issue of mass shootings, though troubling, only represent a small fraction of a gun violence problem in America that is struggling to be addressed in a hyper partisan American political landscape. Gun-related violence resulted in 44,910 deaths in America in 2021 according to the Gun Violence Archive. While much focus is paid to regulation at the federal level, there has been little change in terms of federal firearms law enactments. There has been more activity at the local level in the regulation of firearms. Two cities, Seattle and Pittsburgh have attempted to regulate firearms in response to public health and safety concerns such as the shooting in Boulder and the shooting at the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh. This paper considers the case studies of Pittsburgh and Seattle efforts to regulate firearms at the local level in order to illuminate the difficulties faced by local governments in America attempting to regulate firearms within their respective jurisdictions due, in part, to the perceived plenary power held by state governments within the intrastate legal systems in America. The local firearms regulations passed by the city governments of Pittsburgh and Seattle have faced legal challenges from individual and organisational plaintiffs that have argued such regulations are preempted by state law. From this, the paper shows the precarious position of local autonomy and local government authority with the US Federal constitutional system generally and specially in relation to the regulation of firearms.