Court Strikes Down Law That Let NRA Sue Pa. Cities

[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".