Archive
Subscribe Place Ad Buy Trib Photos Readers' Choice Contests
Jobs Homes Autos Classifieds
Trib Total Media Contact Us
Pa. Commonwealth Court declares state gun law unconstitutional | TribLIVE.com
News

Pa. Commonwealth Court declares state gun law unconstitutional

Adam Brandolph
469216466
Getty Images
For the first time since the Pew Research Center began asking more than 25 years ago, more than half of Americans say the protection of gun rights trumps the need for gun control.

A law that made it possible for the National Rifle Association and other groups to sue Pittsburgh and other municipalities that enact ordinances stricter than state firearms laws is unconstitutional, a state appeals court ruled Thursday.

Approved in the waning days of the 2014 legislative session, the law granted legal standing to “membership organizations” to sue over local gun laws and collect legal fees and other costs if they won.

Drew Crompton, chief of staff to Senate President Pro Tempore Joseph Scarnati, R-Jefferson County, said there would “likely be an appeal by some or all of the defendants” to the state Supreme Court.

The GOP defendants included House Speaker Mike Turzai and then-Gov. Tom Corbett, who lost his bid for re-election last year.

While more than 20 Pennsylvania municipalities repealed all or parts of their gun regulations in an effort to avoid being sued, cities such as Pittsburgh, Philadelphia and Lancaster banded together in a lawsuit challenging the law’s constitutionality.

Commonwealth Court heard arguments in April.

“This law was clearly unconstitutional from the outset, and designed to threaten Pittsburgh and other cities trying to protect their neighborhoods from illegal guns,” said Mayor Bill Peduto. “I’m overjoyed that the court system is joining us in standing up for citizens and public safety instead of special rights for the gun lobby.”

While the 35-page majority opinion ruled in favor of those who challenged the law known as Act 192, the opinion did not get into the merits of the bill.

Instead, the judges declared the law unconstitutional because it violated the single-subject requirement prohibiting bills from containing more than one subject. In addition to giving groups standing to sue over local gun laws, Act 192 included criminal penalties for theft of secondary metals such as copper and aluminum and required the reporting of names to federal authorities of people barred from owning guns because of their mental health.

“We discern no single unifying subject to which all of Act 192’s provisions are germane,” the opinion authored by Judge Robert Simpson said.

Judge Patricia A. McCullough issued a six-page decision disagreeing that the law violated the single-subject rule but agreeing that it violated the original purpose rule.

Gun control advocates hailed the court’s decision as a victory.

“It was a bad policy and bad procedure,” said Shira Goodman, executive director of Philadelphia-based Ceasefire PA. “I think this was a very straightforward case from the beginning.”

Kim Stolfer, a South Fayette gun rights activist and president of Firearms Owners Against Crime, said Republicans could reintroduce a modified version of Act 192 but acknowledged they’d likely need enough votes to overcome a veto by Gov. Tom Wolf, a Democrat.

“This is definitely a wake-up call for the legislative process,” Stolfer said. “But it’s not over by any stretch.”

Adam Brandolph is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 412-391-0927 or [email protected].

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.