Ellwood City rescinds law banning firearms

The ban violated state law, the NRA said.

ELLWOOD CITY, Pa. (AP) — Under pressure from the National Rifle Association, Ellwood City rescinded an ordinance banning the possession of weapons on borough property except by law enforcement officers.

But the local council hopes to introduce a scaled-back version of the ban in the borough about 35 miles northwest of Pittsburgh.

The ban was imposed last month amid concern for the safety of office workers at a borough building where customers at a utility bill payment window sometimes become angry and threaten clerks.

The borough’s mayor, Don Clyde, a 76-year-old retired contractor who regularly carries a .38-caliber handgun, initially threatened to veto the ordinance but decided to let it pass without his signature so it could be challenged legally.

But council withdrew the ban last week after John Hohenwarter, the NRA’s Pennsylvania state liaison, contended in an Aug. 2 letter to Clyde that the ordinance was a violation of state law and possibly the state Constitution.

Lots of publicity

NRA publicity ensued, including postings on its national Web site that elicited responses from gun advocates across the country. One said some opponents would try to attend council meetings “while lawfully openly carrying holstered handguns.”

Clyde said he received “tons of messages” from people who opposed the ban in the borough of about 8,600 residents. He said he believed the ban was directed at him personally because he carries a gun.

The council’s president, Glenn Jones, however, said that was “just not true.”

Council member and retired Ellwood City police officer Anthony “Lefty” DeCarbo said: “We’re just trying to protect our citizens.”

Clyde and some council members have disagreed on various issues, particularly the mayor’s authority over the police department, since he took office in January last year.

The mayor said the ordinance would only deprive people of their right to bear arms.

The council is considering a revised version of the ordinance that would limit the ban to the borough building rather than all borough property, which would include parks, sidewalks and other public places.