The gun suit ruling: Start anew |

The gun suit ruling: Start anew

Commonwealth Court on Thursday ruled as unconstitutional a Pennsylvania law that allowed outside individuals and groups to sue local communities over their unconstitutional gun laws. But the ruling, by a seven-member panel of the appeals court, had absolutely nothing to do with the merits of Act 192.

State Sen. Daylin Leach, four other Democrat lawmakers and the cities of Philadelphia, Pittsburgh and Lancaster challenged Act 192, passed last year. It began life as a House bill about scrap-metal theft penalties. But upon final Senate passage, it also enabled those lawsuits challenging municipal gun laws that, illegally, supersede state gun laws.

The court concluded that violated both the single subject rule of Article III, Section 3, of the Pennsylvania Constitution and Article III, Section 1’s prohibition against changing a bill’s original purpose. And that is correct.

But the plaintiffs’ real goal wasn’t some altruistic exercise in preserving constitutionally pure legislative procedures. No, it was about attempting to preserve a “right” created out of whole cloth to freelance state gun laws.

Act 192 affirmed the supremacy of 40-year-old state laws regarding firearms oversight; the court was neither asked to nor did it consider the merits of the law itself. Thus, it is incumbent upon the Republican-controlled Legislature to re-introduce this measure in a clean and single-purpose bill.

For if passed, it would force Democrat Gov. Tom Wolf to, by extension, either uphold state law or, in violation of his duty, eviscerate it.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using 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.