PA Bill Number: HB335
Title: In inchoate crimes, further providing for prohibited offensive weapons.
Description: In inchoate crimes, further providing for prohibited offensive weapons. ...
Last Action: Re-committed to APPROPRIATIONS
Last Action Date: May 6, 2024
PA Commonwealth Court declares state gun law (Preemption Law Changes) unconstitutional :: 06/25/2015
Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court on Thursday declared unconstitutional a 2014 law that allowed private citizens and gun rights groups to sue local communities for enacting their own gun laws.
The ruling could still be appealed to the state Supreme Court.
The law, known as Act 192, permitted groups like the National Rifle Association to file civil lawsuits against cities such as Pittsburgh, Philadelphia and Allentown over laws requiring owners of lost or stolen firearms to report them to authorities.
The court's 35-page majority opinion focused on whether the law had been altered to change its original purpose between its introduction in the House and its final passage by the Senate.
The judges said it had, and was therefore unconstitutional.
The original purpose of the bill pertained to penalties for the theft of secondary metal. The the final purpose included, among other things, the creation of a civil action through which to challenge local firearms legislation.
Pittsburgh Mayor William Peduto hailed the ruling.
“This law was clearly unconstitutional from the outset, and designed to threaten Pittsburgh and other cities trying to protect their neighborhoods from illegal guns,” he said. “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.”
Judge Patricia A. McCullough issued her own six-page decision in which she both agreed and disagreed with the majority's decision, saying she disagreed that the law violated the single-subject matter rule, but agreed that it violated the original purpose rule.
“If an original purpose is lost along the legislative way, then, too, must be its unifying subject, and vice versa,” McCullough wrote. “As the scrambled egg is both white and yolk, the purpose and subject of legislation are one and the same, and when one leaves the picture so must the other.”
A panel of Commonwealth Court judges heard arguments from both sides in April.
http://triblive.com/news/adminpage/8630825-74/purpose-law-original#axzz3e5gqOtXq
