Pennsylvania law preempts most local firearm regulation under 18 Pa.C.S. 6120. Counties, municipalities, and townships cannot adopt ordinances that...
Reviewed by Will Luker, Founder of CCW Hub. USCCA Training Counselor, USCCA Certified Instructor, NRA Certified Instructor, Law Enforcement.
Pennsylvania law preempts most local firearm regulation under 18 Pa.C.S. 6120. Counties, municipalities, and townships cannot adopt ordinances that regulate the lawful ownership, possession, transfer, or transportation of firearms, ammunition, or ammunition components. The result is a single statewide set of firearm rules set by the General Assembly, not a patchwork of local codes.
For a License to Carry Firearms (LTCF) holder, the practical takeaway is short. Your LTCF is valid in every county. No municipality can layer a local carry permit, a local registration scheme, a local lost-or-stolen reporting rule, an assault-weapon ban, or a parks-and-public-property carry ban on top of state law. If you read about a local ordinance that purports to do any of those things, it is almost certainly preempted, and Pennsylvania's appellate courts have said so repeatedly. The one statute that singles out a single city is 18 Pa.C.S. 6108, which restricts carrying on the public streets and public property of Philadelphia. Section 6108 is a state statute, not a local ordinance, which is why 6120 does not reach it.
Section 6120(a) is the General Rule. It reads:
"No county, municipality or township may in any manner regulate the lawful ownership, possession, transfer or transportation of firearms, ammunition or ammunition components when carried or transported for purposes not prohibited by the laws of this Commonwealth."
Three things to notice in that text.
Section 6120 also contains a separate manufacturer-immunity provision. Subsection (a.1), "No right of action," bars a political subdivision from suing a firearm or ammunition manufacturer, trade association, or dealer for damages or other relief arising from the lawful design, manufacture, marketing, or sale of firearms or ammunition. That provision is still in force and is distinct from the preemption rule in subsection (a).
Pennsylvania appellate courts have read 6120(a) broadly. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania held in Ortiz v. Commonwealth, 681 A.2d 152 (Pa. 1996), that the General Assembly denied municipalities the power to regulate the ownership, possession, or transfer of firearms, describing firearm regulation as a matter of statewide concern reserved to the legislature. Ortiz struck the Philadelphia and Pittsburgh assault-weapon ordinances on that basis.
Local ordinances that courts have struck down under 6120(a) include the following.
One narrow category of local action has survived. In Minich v. County of Jefferson, 869 A.2d 1141 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2005), the court allowed a county to bar firearms in county-owned facilities where the conduct was already restricted by state law, treating the measure as a property-management rule rather than a general regulation of firearm ownership, possession, transfer, or transportation. That exception is narrow and does not authorize a local government to add firearm rules of general application.
Section 6120 reaches local governments. It does not reach private actors or the federal government. The following sit outside its scope.
In 2014, the General Assembly enacted Act 192 to add enforcement teeth to 6120. The amendment added subsection (a.2) ("Relief"), which created a cause of action for a person adversely affected by an unlawful local firearm ordinance, and subsection (a.3) ("Reasonable expenses"), which authorized recovery of fees and expenses. It also added a "Person adversely affected" definition to subsection (b) to support the new cause of action.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court struck Act 192 down two years later in Leach v. Commonwealth, 141 A.3d 426 (Pa. 2016). The defect was procedural. The bill that ultimately passed had been amended to combine the firearm-litigation provisions with unrelated criminal provisions on the theft of metal, which violated the single-subject requirement of Article III, Section 3 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. The Court invalidated the entire act on single-subject grounds.
The practical result matters for instructors and license-holders.
Pennsylvania has one rule that looks like a local regulation but is not. Section 6108 restricts carrying on the public streets and public property of a city of the first class. Philadelphia is the only city of the first class. The statute reads:
"No person shall carry a firearm, rifle or shotgun at any time upon the public streets or upon any public property in a city of the first class unless: (1) such person is licensed to carry a firearm; or (2) such person is exempt from licensing under section 6106(b) of this title (relating to firearms not to be carried without a license)."
Section 6108 is a state statute enacted by the General Assembly. That is why it is not preempted by 6120. Section 6120(a) preempts local ordinances; it does not preempt other provisions of state law.
In practice, 6108 means three things in Philadelphia.
In June 2025, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania held in Commonwealth v. Sumpter, 340 A.3d 977 (Pa. Super. 2025), that 6108 was unconstitutional as applied to the defendant in that case. The statute remains on the books and the Sumpter ruling is an as-applied decision, not a facial invalidation. Until the General Assembly amends 6108 or the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issues a facial ruling, the practical advice is unchanged: in Philadelphia, assume 6108 applies, carry your LTCF, and watch for further appellate developments.
Without Act 192's statutory cause of action, an affected party challenges a preempted local ordinance through the same routes that existed before 2014.
There is no statutory fee-shifting after Leach. A successful plaintiff may sometimes recover fees under traditional bad-faith or vexatious-litigation doctrines, but the Act 192 shortcut is gone. Despite decades of consistent appellate rulings, Philadelphia and Pittsburgh have periodically enacted or retained firearm ordinances on the theory that the courts will eventually revisit Ortiz. If you teach or carry in either city, follow state law and treat any local firearm restriction beyond 6108 as presumptively preempted.
Senate Bill 822 of the 2025-2026 session would change Pennsylvania preemption, but it is a bill, not law. Its title describes an act amending Title 18 (Crimes and Offenses) and Title 53 (Municipalities Generally) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, "in firearms and other dangerous articles, further providing for limitation on the regulation of firearms and ammunition; and, in preemptions, providing for regulation of firearms and ammunition." The Title 18 provision it names by heading is 18 Pa.C.S. 6120, the statute set out above.
Where it stands. The Senate passed SB 822 on third consideration and final passage on May 6, 2026, by a vote of 30 to 20. The House referred it to the Judiciary Committee on May 7, 2026. As of this writing there has been no House committee vote, no House floor vote, and no governor action. Nothing in SB 822 is in effect.
The practical instruction is short. Section 6120 as written, and the case law from Ortiz forward, remain the operative preemption rules in Pennsylvania. Do not teach SB 822 as a change to the law. If you track it, check the bill page on the General Assembly site for any action after May 7, 2026 before repeating anything about it in class.
This page covers one part of our Pennsylvania concealed carry guide.
Read the complete Pennsylvania guideBrowse local instructors offering state-approved training in your area. Book online, complete your training, and get one step closer to your concealed carry permit.