In Schneck v. City of Philadelphia, 34 Pa. Commw. 96, 383 A.2d 227 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1978), the Court examined a Philadelphia ordinance which regulated the acquisition and transfer of firearms. At that time, Section 6120(a) contained language identical to that of the current version, except that it banned regulation of firearms only, not ammunition or components. Specifically, "no county, municipality or township may in any manner regulate the lawful ownership, possession or transportation of firearms when carried or transported for purposes not prohibited by the laws of this commonwealth." The Court enjoined Philadelphia from enforcing the ordinance because "we believed that this statute clearly preempted local governments from regulating the lawful ownership, possession and transportation of firearms, and we also believed that Philadelphia's ordinance attempted to regulate firearms in the manner indicated in the statute as prohibited." Schneck, 383 A2d. at 229-30. In Schneck the appellants sought to enjoin the City from enforcing an ordinance that regulated acquisition and transfer of firearms in the City, arguing that firearms regulation is a matter of statewide concern that is preempted by the legislature. The Court concluded in Schneck that the Uniform Firearms Act totally preempted a local municipality from regulating lawful ownership, possession or transportation of firearms and that the ordinance consequently was prohibited. Because it concluded that the language in Section 6120 was specific, the majority was not persuaded that legislative history review was warranted. In his dissenting opinion, former President Judge Crumlish disagreed that the words of Section 6120 were clear and free from any ambiguity or that they accurately reflected true legislative intent.