Can Townships Constitutionally Regulate Residents’ Firearm Use?

Written by Laurel Bennett

The rights associated with the ownership and use of firearms continues to persist as a hot topic issue. Barris v. Stroud Township (Commonwealth Court, filed April 23, 2026), works to persuasively illustrate the fact that Townships are able to create Ordinances that work to protect their residents from the risks of firearms.

In 2009, Jonathan Barris acquired a 4.66-acre lot located within Stroud Township (Township). At this time, there were no laws or ordinances in place to restrict the usage of firearms on private property. As a result, Barris frequently shot his firearm on his property for target practice, leading to complaints from neighbors.

The Township passed Ordinance No. 9-2011 (Ordinance) in 2011, which prohibited the discharge of firearms except at indoor or outdoor ranges. Therefore, the discharge of firearms was prohibited in the entire residential district of the Township, which Barris resided in. Subsequently, Barris filed a zoning permit application to build an outdoor range on his residential property, which was denied. Rather than appeal his denial, Barris sought out declaratory and injunctive relief in the trial court.

Originally, Barris alleged that the Ordinance violated his right to bear arms under the United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions, as well as other violations of Pennsylvania statutory law and the Pennsylvania Uniform Firearms Act of 1995. Initially, the trial court dismissed the whole complaint. When the Township appealed to the Commonwealth Court, Barris’s constitutional claims were vacated. Barris then amended his complaint following this remand to the trial court to focus on how the Ordinance violates the Second Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Initially, neither party was granted summary judgment by the trial court. However, with additional evidence from the Township, the trial court granted summary judgment to the Township. As a result, Barris appealed, which brought this case to the Commonwealth Court.

When the Commonwealth Court specifically considered the Second Amendment issue, it concluded that the Ordinance facially violated the Second Amendment’s right to become proficient in the use of firearms. This was reversed by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, finding that the Ordinance adhered to historical firearm regulation. Therefore, the Township’s Ordinance prohibiting the discharge of firearms except at indoor or outdoor ranges was permissible, resolving the Second Amendment issue.

Aside from the Second Amendment issue, Barris presented three additional issues. For these issues, the Supreme Court remanded to the Commonwealth Court. Barris’s issues are as follows: (1) the trial court erred when it determined that the Ordinance did not violate his Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process rights to use his residential property for target practice; (2) the trial court erred when it determined that the Township did not violate his Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process rights when it passed the Ordinance; and (3) the trial court erred in concluding that he failed to exhaust the administrative remedies in challenging the constitutionality of the Ordinance. Barris was unsuccessful on all three issues.

As for the first issue, the Township has a legitimate interest in protecting the safety of the public, and regulating the discharge of firearms is a way to do so. Additionally, the Ordinance is presumed to be Constitutional. Consequently, Barris’s Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process rights were not violated by the Ordinance.

With the second issue, Barris’s Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process rights were not violated as a result of the Ordinance because there was adequate public notice of its enactment.

Lastly, Barris did not exhaust his administrative remedies in challenging the constitutionality of the Ordinance because he failed to appeal the denial of his zoning permit application. Barris could have sought out a variance, which he did not do.

A key takeaway from this precedential case is that Townships do have the ability to constitutionally create Ordinances that regulate residents’ discharge of firearms. Though residents may have the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment, firearm regulation also is historically permissible. Furthermore, residents’ public safety prevails over residents’ ability to discharge firearms within a Township. When Townships provide adequate public notice for a new Ordinance regulating the discharge of firearms, residents’ Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process rights will not be deemed to be violated. Ultimately, this case has the ability to impact how courts in the future think about firearm regulation within Townships.

Municipal ordinances frequently intersect with constitutional rights, zoning regulations, and public safety concerns. MPL’s Municipal, Land Use, and Litigation teams help municipalities, developers, and property owners navigate complex regulatory and constitutional issues. Contact MPL to learn how these evolving legal developments may impact your community, property, or project.