Court Strikes Down Law That Let NRA Sue Pa. Cities

[onehandle]

Source: Philadelphia Inquirer

A Commonwealth Court has struck down the new state law that let the NRA — and other third parties — sue Pennsylvania cities for their gun restrictions.

The law is "unconstitutional and void," the court said in Thursday morning's ruling.

The law — known as Act 192 — passed last year, had been challenged by a coalition of cities (including Philadelphia) and lawmakers. The challenge was based on the process used to pass it: The bill was originally written to create penalties for the theft of copper wiring — late during the legislative session it was gutted and repurposed as a gun bill. Critics said that violated the Pennsylvania Constitution, which requires that a bill not be amended in a way that changes its original purpose, and that bills passed by the legislature contain only a single subject.

That order should bring an end to several lawsuits that had been filed under Act 192; the NRA had sued the cities of Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and Lancaster under the act, but the suit had been stayed pending the Commonwealth Court's ruling on the act's legitimacy.

Read more: http://www.phillymag.com/news/2015/06/25/nra-law-pennsylvania-struck-down

---

This lobbying arm of the GOP can be beaten.

[randys1]

1. Awesome

[SunSeeker]

2. K & R

[47of74]

3. Boy the reich is having a pretty crappy day today.

[ManiacJoe]

4. While state preemption is a good thing,

one does need to use the proper methods to pass the law.

[florida08]

5. well I would hope so

but this is what to expect once the TPP is activated

[BumRushDaShow]

6. Philly is happy!

Heard this when I finally got home!

[Thespian2]

7. K & R

Beating them takes lots of work...then the many-headed hydra rises again and must be beaten again...

[happyslug]

8. Here is the actual opinion

Last edited Thu Jun 25, 2015, 08:41 PM - Edit history (1)

http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Commonwealth/out/585MD14_6-25-15.pdf?cb=1

The court found that HOW the state passed the law violated the State Constitution NOT that the subject matter was unconstitutional.

Under the Pennsylvania Constitution all proposed laws MUST (Article iii, Section 3):

“No bill shall be passed containing more than one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title, except a general appropriation bill or a bill codifying or compiling the law or a part thereof.”

The court ruled it was a violation of the above clause for the State legislature to add who has standing to sue in the case of Local Firearm laws to a bill in regard to metal thieves. Since those were two different subjects, the whole law violated Article III, Section 3 of the Pennsylvania State Constitution.

The court also ruled that HOW the law was passed violated Article III, Section i of the Pennsylvania State Constitution which reads as follows:

“No law shall be passed except by bill, and no bill shall be so altered or amended, on its passage through either House, as to change its original purpose.”

The Court ruled by adding the who has standing law to a proposed law regarding Metal thieves so changed the proposed laws as to change its original purpose.

Now, this ruling strikes down not only the Standing law, but the metal thieves law.

The advise side maintained that the law was simply a change in the Crimes Code and that is the position taken by the dissent. Now the dissent rejected the argument as to Article III, Section 3 on the ground this law started as a modification of the Crimes Code and that all it did and thus was "One Subject". The Dissent then agrees with the Majority as to Article III, Section 1, that by adding the increase who has standing to sue was a change in the original purpose and thus Violated Article III, Section 1 of the the Pennsylvania State Constitution.

I suspect this will NOT be the last we hear of this case, I fully expect the State Supreme Court to take up this case, more to clarified what is the correct interpenetration of "one purpose" and "Change its original purpose".

Otto von Bismark once said "People with weak stomachs should not watch sausages or laws being made". That statement reflected that how bills become laws is a very convoluted process. Any court that interferes with such process is getting in over their head. For Decades the State Supreme Court basically deferred to the State Legislature as to these two items in the Pennsylvania State Constitution. Since 2000 that has changed to a degree, but so has the who is sitting on the Pennsylvania State Supreme Court. Will the State Supreme Court take up the case? It is up to the court to decide, the right to be heard by the State Supreme Court is up to the Court thus I do not know, but given the long length of the opinion I suspect the State Supreme Court will take it up just to make it clear what is "One Subject" and what is "Original Purposes".

[Fred Sanders]

11. Apparently the GOP Senate Chair signed the wrong version on the last day of the Assembly illegally amended final

Bill.

No one caught it until weeks later when another bill in a special session had to be passed to fix the original completely invalid bill, which attempt was also thrown out...hilarious reading....the court is almost mocking the Clown Show antics before blowing them all a raspberry.

The asshats even were even incompetent in trying to hide their mendacity and ineptitude.

The thing about legal percedent and stare decisis is that it is legal history that no amount of propaganda can erase, and all the court did was apply previous legal precedent.

P.22:

"Guided by these (legal) principles...we find that the (impugned legislation) clearly, palpably and plainly violates the single subject provision of Article III, section 3 of the Pennsylvania Constitution."

Ouch!

[happyslug]

12. But the older cases, cases the court barely cite as being "Over ridden"...

tend to show greater difference to the state Legislature AND the State Supreme Court has gone though its own problems

In October 2014 one Justice resigned after being suspended for "sending pornographic emails and attempting to blackmail a fellow justice,"

http://www.post-gazette.com/news/state/2014/10/27/Sources-Justice-McCaffery-to-step-down-from-Pennsylvania-Supreme-Court/stories/201410270154

In 2013 Justice Joan Oeie Melvin was convicted of using state staff and money for campaigning, a felony in Pennsylvania. She subsequently resigned:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joan_Orie_Melvin

Of the five remaining justices (PA has seven Supreme Court Justices), one is an interim justice whose replacement will be picked this fall (along with the two vacancies on the Court). One reaches mandatory retirement when he reaches age 70 in 2016, another in 2017 and a third in 2018. Thus this fall you will have three new Justices on the court, three out of seven. Given a new Justice was last elected in 2007, you have four justices who were NOT sitting on the court when the Court decided to "enforce" Article III of the Pennsylvania State Constitution.

Of the Seven Justice that tighten the rule in 2002, only two are still on the court, both good Republicans.

The previous decision the Commonwealth court relied on:

https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2399017/city-of-philadelphia-v-com/

In that opinion the Court notice that in a case in 1927 the court has struck down a law regarding two professions, on the ground the title of the law did not cover both professions. The court noted that since that time period the State courts had adopted a more deferral attitude to what the State Legislature did. In the above case the court rejected that greater deferral. My problem is will the present court go with the above decision OR go with the older rulings? Time will tell.

[Historic NY]

9. Finally common sense.

[happyslug]

13. That a Court can rule that HOW a law was passed was unconstitutional?

Remember that was the constitutional attack, not that the State Legislature could NOT pass such a law, but HOW the law was passed was unconstitutional. The law did have the majority of votes in both houses, the attack was that it contained more then one subject matter AND that the original purpose of the propose law had been changed during the amendment process.

I have problems with courts having the power to rule HOW a law was passed was unconstitutional. I have no problem with the courts ruling a law unconstitutional but that is NOT the situation in this case, the court is ruling HOW it was passed was unconstitutional for it violated the State Constitution.

[Fred Sanders]

10. Democracy dies in the dark of GOP/ALEC far too clever dirty tricks. No wonder they hate the judiciary.

[secondvariety]

14. They passed

a similar stinker in Florida. For instance- according to the law, municipalities are forbidden from keeping anyone, anywhere from setting up a firing range in their back yard. Here in St. Pete, some gun idiot went public with his intent to do just that and our Mayor and Chief of Police publicly said he'd be arrested on the spot - state law be damned. My respect for Mayor Kriseman and CoP Hollaway went up 100% after that.