Farmer Troy
Regular Member
Court rejects NRA gun law challenge
Saturday, June 26, 2010
By Vivian Nereim, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
A three-judge panel of Commonwealth Court on Friday upheld the dismissal of a challenge to Pittsburgh's lost and stolen gun law, finding that the National Rifle Association and four individuals lacked the legal standing to bring the case.
The city enacted the ordinance in 2008, requiring residents to report lost or stolen firearms within 24 hours of discovering they are missing. Violators face a $500 to $1,000 fine or 90 days imprisonment.
No one has been cited under the law, but the NRA and four local gun owners sued Pittsburgh in 2009, arguing that the ordinance violates state code, which bars municipalities from regulating lawful gun ownership.
The suit was tossed out by Common Pleas Judge R. Stanton Wettick Jr., but the NRA moved to reinstate the case and argued before Commonwealth Court in April.
In Friday's decision, Judge Rochelle S. Friedman and Judge Bonnie Brigance Leadbetter, who wrote the majority opinion, upheld Judge Wettick's decision. The appellants did not face direct and immediate harm from the ordinance, so they did not have the standing to challenge it, Judge Leadbetter wrote.
Judge P. Kevin Brobson dissented.
Supporters of similar ordinances across the state said the decision was their second victory in one month. On June 7, the state Supreme Court declined to hear a case about Philadelphia's lost and stolen gun law.
"This is the fifth court now to reject the NRA's arguments," said Daniel Vice, senior attorney for the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. Mr. Vice argued the city's case.
In his dissenting opinion, Judge Brobson wrote that the court's analysis of standing was overly restrictive, creating a massive obstacle for anyone challenging an ordinance before it has been enforced.
In order to prove they had legal standing, the appellants needed a substantial, direct and immediate interest in the outcome of the case, Judge Leadbetter wrote.
To interpret that requirement, she relied on a decision dismissing the Philadelphia case, which reasoned that because none of the plaintiffs had been charged under the ordinance, the possibility that they might lose a gun, fail to report it and be punished was "remote and speculative."
In Pittsburgh, one of the appellants said his gun had been stolen. Three said they lived in areas where burglaries were common. But Judge Leadbetter argued that these differences did not confer standing.
Judge Brobson warned that under such reasoning, only someone who has violated a criminal ordinance or commits to violating it may challenge it before the ordinance has been enforced.
Attorney Meghan Jones-Rolla, who is representing the NRA, said the dissent was "right on."
"Especially when you're looking at a pre-enforcement challenge that infringes upon a constitutionally protected right, you should be able to be heard in court," she said.
The NRA has 30 days to appeal the decision. Ms. Jones-Rolla was awaiting instructions from the NRA on Friday. It may request that the entire Commonwealth Court hear the case, she said. It also may request that the state Supreme Court review the decision.
Vivian Nereim: vnereim@post-gazette.com or 412-263-1413.
Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10177/1068521-53.stm#ixzz0rzGrcIaU
Saturday, June 26, 2010
By Vivian Nereim, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
A three-judge panel of Commonwealth Court on Friday upheld the dismissal of a challenge to Pittsburgh's lost and stolen gun law, finding that the National Rifle Association and four individuals lacked the legal standing to bring the case.
The city enacted the ordinance in 2008, requiring residents to report lost or stolen firearms within 24 hours of discovering they are missing. Violators face a $500 to $1,000 fine or 90 days imprisonment.
No one has been cited under the law, but the NRA and four local gun owners sued Pittsburgh in 2009, arguing that the ordinance violates state code, which bars municipalities from regulating lawful gun ownership.
The suit was tossed out by Common Pleas Judge R. Stanton Wettick Jr., but the NRA moved to reinstate the case and argued before Commonwealth Court in April.
In Friday's decision, Judge Rochelle S. Friedman and Judge Bonnie Brigance Leadbetter, who wrote the majority opinion, upheld Judge Wettick's decision. The appellants did not face direct and immediate harm from the ordinance, so they did not have the standing to challenge it, Judge Leadbetter wrote.
Judge P. Kevin Brobson dissented.
Supporters of similar ordinances across the state said the decision was their second victory in one month. On June 7, the state Supreme Court declined to hear a case about Philadelphia's lost and stolen gun law.
"This is the fifth court now to reject the NRA's arguments," said Daniel Vice, senior attorney for the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. Mr. Vice argued the city's case.
In his dissenting opinion, Judge Brobson wrote that the court's analysis of standing was overly restrictive, creating a massive obstacle for anyone challenging an ordinance before it has been enforced.
In order to prove they had legal standing, the appellants needed a substantial, direct and immediate interest in the outcome of the case, Judge Leadbetter wrote.
To interpret that requirement, she relied on a decision dismissing the Philadelphia case, which reasoned that because none of the plaintiffs had been charged under the ordinance, the possibility that they might lose a gun, fail to report it and be punished was "remote and speculative."
In Pittsburgh, one of the appellants said his gun had been stolen. Three said they lived in areas where burglaries were common. But Judge Leadbetter argued that these differences did not confer standing.
Judge Brobson warned that under such reasoning, only someone who has violated a criminal ordinance or commits to violating it may challenge it before the ordinance has been enforced.
Attorney Meghan Jones-Rolla, who is representing the NRA, said the dissent was "right on."
"Especially when you're looking at a pre-enforcement challenge that infringes upon a constitutionally protected right, you should be able to be heard in court," she said.
The NRA has 30 days to appeal the decision. Ms. Jones-Rolla was awaiting instructions from the NRA on Friday. It may request that the entire Commonwealth Court hear the case, she said. It also may request that the state Supreme Court review the decision.
Vivian Nereim: vnereim@post-gazette.com or 412-263-1413.
Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10177/1068521-53.stm#ixzz0rzGrcIaU
