Looks like the courts are giving this the OK. We covered this issue previously here. Apparently the ordinance does have exceptions for self-defense and other activities. I should note that whether Mr. Swinton acted in self-defense or not is a question of fact, rather than of law, and is something for a jury to decide at trial.
What the judge here is saying is that, as a matter of law, the ordinance is in accordance with state law. Pennsylvania’s preemption statute does not explicitly prohibit the regulation of firearms discharge. Obviously state law has to preempt some aspects of firearms discharge, otherwise what’s to stop cities from making the discharge of a firearm unlawful under any circumstance?