PA Judges: No constitutional right to have firearm when working for PA government

[BenGlock]

See http://www.aopc.org/OpPosting/Cwealt...10_1-25-12.pdf

Workers Compensation Judge was terminated by PA Department of Labor & Industry ("L&I") for having firearm in his office and for having it in his car at L&I parking garage.

Relevant excerpt:

"Perry next argues the Commission erred in determining that one instance of inadvertently bringing a licensed firearm into a workplace, in the context of an unblemished work record spanning more than 30 years, was just cause for removal from the classified service. He asserts [that his termination] represents an impermissible infringement on the rights guaranteed by Article 1, Section 21 of the Pennsylvania Constitution and the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Pet‟r‟s Br. at 11, 22.

"Perry asserts that he was “discarded by L&I because he exercised a right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the federal constitution, and, in a much more straight forward manner, guaranteed by Article 1, Section 21 of the Pennsylvania Constitution ….” Pet‟r‟s Br. at 24. Perry further contends that “[w]hen the state, as an employer, disciplines one if its employees and an infringement of a constitutional right is implicated, there is a „calculus of injury‟ required and the „government‟s obligation to react with caution, disciplining an employee, if at all, only when an injury to the agency is more than speculative.‟” Pet‟r‟s Br. at 25 (quoting Sacks v. Dep‟t of Pub. Welfare, 502 Pa. 201, 215, 465 A.2d 981, 988 (1983)). Notably, however, Perry does not assert that L&I‟s Weapons Policy Statement is unconstitutional. The Commission declined to address this issue, stating, “[t]he parties have presented little or no discussion and analysis of this issue and have not established that resolution of the constitutional claim is essential to our determination of this appeal ….” Commission Op. at 29. Although not raised in detail before the Commission, we believe Perry‟s brief mention of this issue at the hearings before the Commission, and his brief discussion of this issue in his post-hearing brief is sufficient to avoid waiver.

"As to the merits, the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” U.S. CONST. amend. II. Additionally, Article 1, Section 21 of the Pennsylvania Constitution states: “The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.” PA. CONST. art. 1, §21.
This Court previously recognized the right to bear arms is not unlimited; it may be restricted in the exercise of police power for the good order of society and protection of citizens. R.H.S. v. Allegheny Cnty. Dep‟t of Human Servs., Office of Mental Health, 936 A.2d 1218 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007). Further, in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), in which the U.S. Supreme Court held that a District of Columbia statute that prohibited possession of handguns in the home violated the Second Amendment, the Court explained:

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. … [N]othing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings ….Id. at 626-27 (emphasis added) (citations omitted). See also McDonald v. City of Chicago, Illinois, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 130 S.Ct. 3020, 3047 (2010) (reiterating that, “[w]e made it clear in Heller that our holding did not cast doubt on such longstanding regulatory measures as … laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as … government buildings …. We repeat those assurances here.”) (citation and quotations omitted).

Based on the above authority, which recognizes that the right to bear arms is not unlimited, and may be restricted for the good of the order of society and the protection of citizens, R.H.S., and that a prohibition on carrying firearms in sensitive places such as government buildings is permissible, McDonald; Heller, we discern no infringement on Perry‟s constitutional right to bear arms based on the facts presented here."

[streaker69]

I wonder if he's collecting unemployement?

[TaePo]

"...right to keep and bear arms shall not be questioned..."
"...right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed..."

Other than thinking that, "Gee, there is no way the founders meant any weapon at any time and any place." Or, "today's weapons are too powerful to be in civilian hands or not controlled by the police" (police state, anyone?).

I just cannot fathom the belief in limited rights. If we look to the state and Federal constitutions, we see no ability given to a government to regulate private ownership and carry of firearms.

You are not prevented from yelling fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire as a precaution against someone violating or abusing their free speech rights. You will be arrested and prosecuted through due process, ex post facto, however.

Same with firearms. As long as you do not assault, threaten or kill/maim someone, you are good to go (under my theory). After due process, being found guilty of such behavior, your right(s) may be curtailed for a period of time etc.

The above is much different than requiring registration, permit systems, requirements to notify at any time that one is armed or not etc. These regulations of the right or 'limits' are really unconstitutional.

[ungawa]

I love this. So many people thought Heller could never possibly be considered by lower courts to mean:

"Some people can have a firearm in the home if approved by the government, if they follow our rules, and if they meet our requirements, and if they are our kind of people. We can deny that right to whomever we want for any reason or for even no reason at all! As long as we don't deny EVERYBODY, we can still deny the right to almost everybody. Ouside the home? Forget it, we can still ban all guns under all circumstances for everybody."

Well, guess what? They put a hell of a lot more weight on that discussion than they due on the actual issue rulled upon.

[Houston]

Ok, I realise I'm new here and I'm not trying to be an ass, but isn't this the same as a business stating that you can't carry while on their property? I work for the county government and it states in our employee handbook that firearms are not permitted anywhere on county property, including being secured in our vehicles while parked on county property. While I dont like that, I'm not taking the chance and losing my job. Again, I hope I am not misreading the thread, and if I am, I do apologise.

[Sandcut]

I've been working in government buildings for over 20 years and I have yet to work in one that should qualify as a "sensitive area" any moreso than your average commercial office building.

What makes them so sensitive?

[streaker69]

I've been working in government buildings for over 20 years and I have yet to work in one that should qualify as a "sensitive area" any moreso than your average commercial office building.

What makes them so sensitive?

The majority of the liberals that work there. Many of them are sensitive cause daddy didn't hug them enough as kids.

[mollymayhem82]

The majority of the liberals that work there. Many of them are sensitive cause daddy didn't hug them enough as kids.

DAMMIT!!! You beat me to it.

[MartinBrody]

I've been working in government buildings for over 20 years and I have yet to work in one that should qualify as a "sensitive area" any moreso than your average commercial office building.

What makes them so sensitive?

Just like they demonize certain types of firearms they try to chip away at the rkba this way too. What do you need a gun in church for? Why do you need an AK47 to kill a deer? Their argument is all based on emotion rather than reason so they don't have any actual logical argument to back it up so they make up this crap because the sheep think about it for 2 seconds, agree, and don't give it another thought.

[Sandcut]

Actually folks, it was kind of a rhetorical question.

The real reason is because the people that make the laws work in government buildings. It is easier to not be accountable for your actions when you disarm people.

Now I will admit, there are places like court facilities, detention facilities etc. where I will acknowledge, due to the nature of the business conducted there, have a legitimate need to restrict possession of firearms. But you could never in a million years convince me that there is a real justification for a person to be prohibited from carrying a firearm while walking in to the local PADEP office to register for a permit to install a boat dock.