Peters Council on Monday rescinded a controversial and unpopular ordinance banning firearms from most township-owned buildings and parks, but not before getting an earful from angry residents and gun rights activists.

Members of the public have been lobbying council for a month to withdraw the ordinance, which they said is unconstitutional and a violation of Second Amendment rights, but others expressed concern on Monday over how discussion about the issue unfolded.

During a meeting earlier this month, council convened an executive session to discuss privately what they would do about the ordinance, which drew criticism from the National Rifle Association and national conservative publications.

Councilmen Robert Lewis, William Naumoff, Frank Arcuri, David Ball, James Berquist and Daniel McMenamin are Republicans, while newly appointed Councilwoman Patricia Moore is a Democrat.

"That executive session was wrong. It violated the Sunshine Act," said resident and former councilman Peter Glasser, whose comments were applauded by the audience. The private meeting kept the public from hearing debate on the hot-button issue, he said.

The law calls for open government meetings except in special cases. Mr. Glasser also questioned other executive sessions called by council over the past year involving procedures for a reorganization meeting and a recycling contract.

Township Solicitor William A. Johnson said the meeting on Aug. 13 was private because the issue could have resulted in litigation, and because he wanted to discuss with council the basis for his findings and recommendations.

Some of those who previously complained about the ordinance said they believed it was unlawful and that council could be charged with a crime, language that Mr. Johnson said he interpreted as a reasonable threat of litigation, though no one threatened a lawsuit.

According to the Sunshine Act, executive sessions can be called to discuss ongoing or anticipated litigation. However, a media lawyer with the Pennsylvania Newspaper Association said the reasoning behind the private meeting in Peters was stretching it a bit.

"I think that's wrong under the Sunshine Act," said Melissa Melewsky, media law counsel for the newspaper association. "There's no exception that I know of that would allow them to discuss rescinding an ordinance."

Fights over private meetings and open records have raged for years in Pennsylvania, due to a law that provides little in the way of disciplinary action and an expensive and intimidating process to challenge violations through citizen lawsuits.

"There's no teeth to it," Ms. Melewsky said of the law. "Elected officials just ignore it."

But, there may be changes ahead, thanks to the midnight pay-raise vote in the state legislature in 2005, which propelled 50 new legislators to office this year, promising fundamental changes in state government, including more public access.

A bill in the state Senate would provide stiffer penalties for deliberate Sunshine law violations, raising fines from $100 to $1,000 for public officials. There are two bills pending in the state House that would expand the state's open record laws, and Gov. Ed Rendell is expected to forward a plan to provide for more open government access.

It's unclear how changes would affect local government in Peters, which televises council meetings and is one of the few municipalities in the area that provides up-to-date dockets and detailed information about votes to the public.

The debate drew an e-mail statement from resident Gary J. Stiegel Jr., who is challenging Mr. Lewis, who is council president, for his seat in the November general election.

Mr. Stiegel foisted blame on Mr. Lewis for calling the executive session, saying he felt it was an attempt to hide discussion about the issue. Mr. Johnson, however, accepted responsibility for the meeting because he OK'd it.

Mr. Lewis was the lone vote against rescinding the ordinance; the measure passed 6-1. He said he was reacting to complaints from neighbors who live near Peters Lake and his own concern over discharging weapons, which can be heard at night.

The ordinance was spawned after a resident carried a handgun into a heated zoning hearing board meeting this summer.

Although the resident didn't brandish or threaten to use the weapon, a board member felt intimidated when he spotted the gun, which the resident had a permit to carry.

Under Pennsylvania law, those who hold a license to carry firearms are permitted to possess and transport them anywhere in the state except onto school property or courthouse facilities. A specific provision in the state law prohibits counties and municipalities from regulating the possession, ownership or transportation of firearms.

Nonetheless, council moved forward with the ordinance because several governmental entities have challenged the law with mixed results, including Jefferson County, which successfully banned firearms from county offices because they were located in the same facility as the courthouse.

Mr. Johnson said his recommendation last month to adopt the ordinance probably was hasty.

"If challenged, I feel our ordinance would be held invalid," he said.