HARRISBURG -- The attorney general’s office says it will not defend a law that allows the National Rifle Association to sue over local firearms regulations, leaving the statute’s defense to the Corbett administration and the Legislature.

The law, which takes effect in January, gives the NRA and other membership organizations legal standing to sue municipalities, such as Pittsburgh, that have enacted firearms regulations. In Pittsburgh, the NRA and four local gun owners had contested a 2008 ordinance requiring residents to report lost or stolen firearms, but state courts found the parties lacked standing.

The move by Attorney General Kathleen Kane, a Democrat, was applauded by CeaseFire Pennsylvania, an advocacy group, whose executive director, Shira Goodman, called it “recognition that this law was passed unconstitutionally.” The lawsuit from the cities of Pittsburgh, Philadelphia and Lancaster, along with several Democratic state legislators, claims the bill is unconstitutional on the grounds that it addresses more than one subject.

But the attorney general’s announcement that she would not defend a state law also garnered criticism. Her office explained the decision by releasing a statement, which reads, in full: “The General determined it would be more efficient and in the best interest of the Commonwealth for the Office of General Counsel to handle this matter. Therefore, she exercised her authority under the Commonwealth Attorneys Act and delegated it.”

A spokeswoman did not respond to additional questions about the attorney general’s reasoning.

Bruce Ledewitz, an expert on the Pennsylvania Constitution at the Duquesne University School of Law, said he understood Ms. Kane’s decision in 2013 that she would not defend a state law restricting marriage to the union of a man and a woman. Ms. Kane said at the time that she believed the marriage law to be unconstitutional. A federal judge later agreed.

“This one is so different from the last one,” Mr. Ledewitz said. “It’s almost like she’s saying, ’I think this is a very bad law, I don’t agree with it, and so I’m not defending it.’ ... Nobody thinks she has that authority.”

Mr. Ledewitz noted that he considers the firearms policy “a terrible law” and “a gift to the NRA.”

Ernie Preate, a former Pennsylvania attorney general, said the law allows the attorney general to delegate the defense of a state law to the governor’s lawyers in the Office of General Counsel. But he said the attorney general’s job is to defend state law. During his tenure, Mr. Preate said, he defended state laws unless the governor’s lawyers asked to be in charge of the case.

“That’s your job,” he said. “You’re elected to defend these cases, these statutes. Unless some extraordinary circumstance comes about, like the governor wants it back, you should be the one who’s in there.”

Asked if Gov.-elect Tom Wolf would continue defense of the law -- or if he believed he was empowered to decline to -- a spokesman responded only in variations of: “All existing litigation will be reviewed once the Governor-elect takes office.” Gov. Tom Corbett’s lawyers have accepted the case, for the time being, and the House majority leader, Dave Reed, R-Indiana, said the House and Senate would defend the law.

Mr. Corbett’s spokesman, Jay Pagni, called the development an “example of the attorney general failing to do her constitutional duty.”

“Some may question if this is the attorney general’s inability to do her job and the job that the people of Pennsylvania elected her to do,” he said.

In July 2013, Ms. Kane explained in a statement her decision against defending the state’s Defense of Marriage Act: “I cannot ethically defend the constitutionality of Pennsylvania’s version of DOMA where I believe it to be wholly unconstitutional.”

She drew a distinction between that case and a lawsuit challenging the state’s voter identification law, which she said she was defending because that law was constitutional “on its face,” although she had concerns about its implementation. A state judge later ruled that the voter identification law was unconstitutional.

State Rep. Dan Frankel, D-Squirrel Hill, said he believes the attorney general made the right call in the firearms case.

“It can’t be defended,” he said. “She’s right not to defend an unconstitutional law that was orchestrated by an extreme organization that is trying to intimidate local governments across the commonwealth.”

Americans for Responsible Solutions, the group founded by former U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and her husband, also applauded Ms. Kane’s decision.

Karen Langley: klangley@post-gazette.com or 717-787-2141 or on Twitter @karen_langley

Read more at http://www.philly.com/philly/news/politics/20141205_AG_Kane_won_t_defend_controversial_gun_law.html#G2C2sQLhHtuvqY7Z.99

First Published: December 5, 2014, 2:23 p.m.
Updated: December 6, 2014, 4:40 a.m.