Recent PA Supreme Court Ruling, Could it affect gun rights?

[ChamberedRound]

From today's Reading Eagle, a ruling in a recent lawsuit brought against 4 Berks county towns on behalf of a farmer trying to use his land. Emphasis added by me:

http://www.readingeagle.com/article.aspx?id=70799

State’s highest court upholds decision on Berks farm regulation

Attorney General Tom Corbett alleged that a joint ordinance by four municipalities was tighter than state law allows. Commonwealth Court disagreed.

By Rebecca VanderMeulen
Reading Eagle

Berks County, PA - Pennsylvania’s attorney general has lost a bid to revive a lawsuit claiming that four Berks County municipalities improperly regulate farming.

A state Supreme Court ruling available last week upholds a lower court’s decision to dismiss the action against Heidelberg and North Heidelberg townships and Robesonia and Womelsdorf.

Attorney General Tom Corbett filed the lawsuit after North Heidelberg dairy farmer Ernest L. Gelsinger turned to the state for help because his request to build a barn for about 550 cows on his farm along Charming Forge Road was denied.

Corbett alleged that farming regulations in the joint ordinance the four municipalities have had since January 2004 were tighter than state law allows.

The lawsuit was one of the first filed under the state Agriculture, Communities and Rural Environment law. ACRE allows the attorney general to sue on behalf of farmers to resolve such conflicts between state law and local farm ordinances.

Corbett cited several specific requirements in the municipal ordinance. They included large minimum setbacks for the barn and a study mandated because the proposed operation would have used more than 5,000 gallons of water a day.

In dismissing the case last December, Commonwealth Court ruled that Corbett had failed to show that North Heidelberg enforced the ordinance since ACRE’s passage in July 2005.

According to the court, merely having an ordinance on the books is not a violation of the law even if that ordinance is overly restrictive.

The state Supreme Court agreed.

The decision left Gelsinger confused.

“It’s just interesting that you can have a law on the books, but you don’t have to enforce it, and that’s OK by the courts,” he said.

North Heidelberg supervisors Chairman Jeff C. Schatz saw it differently. Like the courts, he felt there was no basis for the lawsuit because the ordinance hasn’t been enforced since ACRE passed.

He likened Corbett’s action to a policeman ticketing a driver who’s approaching a stop sign.

“He thinks you’re going to go through the stop sign, but you haven’t gone through the stop sign,” Schatz said.

Schatz held out the possibility that the municipalities might be willing to revamp the joint ordinance but said they are waiting to see what Corbett does next.

In the meantime, the municipalities would like to be reimbursed for what they spent defending themselves against the lawsuit. The total isn’t clear but Schatz said it is tens of thousands of dollars.

“I wish the state of Pennsylvania would agree to pay our lawyers’ fees,” Robesonia Councilman Randall D. Gartner said.

Efforts to reach someone at the attorney general’s office for comment were unsuccessful.

•Contact reporter Rebecca VanderMeulen at 610-371-5015 or rvandermeulen@readingeagle.com.

My concern with the above ruling is highlighted. If having an ordinance on the books but not enforcing it is OK, then could municipalities end-around the UFA? Now I know in the case of firearm regulation there are a lot of municipalities which still have "no firearms" ordinances for one reason or another which predate the UFA and haven't been removed. However, this means that many people are, in the eyes of a municipal administration, breaking a law to exercise their right in conflict with a law which shouldn't even be on the books.

Why is it that in order to require the municipalities to adhere to a higher law (the UFA), individual citizens must break the law, be charged, and then challenge a law which shouldn't even be on the books in the first place?

Using that logic in the case of the farmer, does this mean that he must build his barn anyway, force the municipality to enforce the ordinance, and THEN take them to court in order to have the ordinance overturned?

Amazing...

[LittleRedToyota]

Using that logic in the case of the farmer, does this mean that he must build his barn anyway, force the municipality to enforce the ordinance, and THEN take them to court in order to have the ordinance overturned?

sounds that way to me. and i think this is often how things work.

imho, it is a shortcoming in our system. citizens should not have to break a law before being able to petition the court to rule on its legality.

[phillyd2]

In a perverted way, it sort of makes sense. Only those with standing should be party to lawsuit. The farmer would only have standing after the gov't took some action against him. Guess in a weird way, it also cuts down on the number of lawsuits filed every year.

[LittleRedToyota]

Guess in a weird way, it also cuts down on the number of lawsuits filed every year.

i think that prolly has a lot to do with it.

imho, though, we should be more worried about cutting down on the number of laws passed every year.

automatic judicial review of every law passed would help accomplish that.

as would automatically hitting the legal "reset button" every 50 years or so...wipe all existing laws off the books and start over from the constitution.

if only i could be dictator...

[ChamberedRound]

automatic judicial review of every law passed would help accomplish that.

While I think this is well-intentioned, this is NOT the way to solve the issue I initially brought up. Automatic judicial review would throw governmental checks-and-balances out of whack, giving too much power to the Judiciary Branch. They could use any number of reasons to NOT allow a given bill to pass into law and hijack parliamentary process. This type of system would be ripe for abuse by bad judges which like to legislate from the bench.

[awkx]

According to the court, merely having an ordinance on the books is not a violation of the law even if that ordinance is overly restrictive.

In some jurisdictions, citizens can sue for a Declaratory Judgment and have the court enjoin the town from enforcing the ordinance. Such an injunction was sought, for example, in Parker v. District of Columbia in regards to DC's handgun ban. However, as far as I know, a court has never ordered a law to actually be repealed.

[phillyd2]

i think that prolly has a lot to do with it.

imho, though, we should be more worried about cutting down on the number of laws passed every year.

automatic judicial review of every law passed would help accomplish that.

as would automatically hitting the legal "reset button" every 50 years or so...wipe all existing laws off the books and start over from the constitution.

if only i could be dictator...

Not for me thanks. Now we can vote out whoever pass stupid laws - its only our fault that we don't. Put it into the hands of the judicial branch and you lose all accountability.

However, the reset button does have a certain appeal.

[LittleRedToyota]

Not for me thanks. Now we can vote out whoever pass stupid laws - its only our fault that we don't. Put it into the hands of the judicial branch and you lose all accountability.

you guys are missing the point. this court would not be able to pass any laws, only prevent those already passed by the legislature from being actually put into force.

it adds a check on governmental power.

of course, i suppose i am imagining a court that actually applies the constitution as it is worded...and only asks the question "is this legislation constitutional and legal" and does not consider "compelling interests" any of that crap..and that is prolly a pipe dream...so, yeah, you guys are prolly right.

or maybe this court should actually be a computer program...

at any rate, i still think it is royally screwed up that you cannot challenge the constitutionality/legality of a law without first breaking that law.

(and common sense does dictate a reset button. what do legislatures do? they pass laws...eventually, you won't need any more laws, but the legislature is still going to keep passing them because--well, that's what they do...so, you will necessarily end up with a bunch of unnecessary--and therefore bad--laws. it is inherent in any system that includes a legislature.)

[markheck1]

you guys are missing the point. this court would not be able to pass any laws, only prevent those already passed by the legislature from being actually put into force.

it adds a check on governmental power.

of course, i suppose i am imagining a court that actually applies the constitution as it is worded...and only asks the question "is this legislation constitutional and legal" and does not consider "compelling interests" any of that crap..and that is prolly a pipe dream...so, yeah, you guys are prolly right.

or maybe this court should actually be a computer program...

at any rate, i still think it is royally screwed up that you cannot challenge the constitutionality/legality of a law without first breaking that law.

(and common sense does dictate a reset button. what do legislatures do? they pass laws...eventually, you won't need any more laws, but the legislature is still going to keep passing them because--well, that's what they do...so, you will necessarily end up with a bunch of unnecessary--and therefore bad--laws. it is inherent in any system that includes a legislature.)

Job Seciruty......
of course they can sit around and vote all day on expressions of "Feelings" for this and that

Come On....do we really need "a resolution expressing the sense of the Senate that a "Welcome Home Vietnams Veterans Day" should be established" and "a resolution expressing the sense of the Senate on the situation in Burma"

Here's one for us, "a concurrent resolution recognizing all hunters across the U.S. for their continued commitment to safety"
Exactly what does this do for me?

[SigForLife]

Hold on...The PA Supreme Court's ruling is NO different than the determination the US Supreme Court has held. In any level of government, the legislative body passes the laws, but it is up to the executive body to enforce them. The absence of enforcement will not grant standing to an individual. A person can only acquire standing if the injury is a cognizable interest (legally protected interest) which is Actual or Imminent, and is Concrete and Particularized. (Standing also requires causation and redressability, but that isn't at issue here).

Under the factor of Imminent, it can not be hypothesized or some day speculations. The laws which are on the books, but not enforced, throughout the 50 states are immense. There are still laws forbidding interracial marriage, laws allowing Domestic Authority (ability to beat one's wife), laws forbidding the use of contraceptives...etc. These stay on the books until either 1. they are removed or 2. they are enforced and then challenged.

The farmers possible option: Courts will not give advisory opinion (Gov't agency/dept/branch asks Court is what they want to do is legal) HOWEVER, since the case is decided (for the time being), an enterprising attorney would seek a Declaratory Judgment, which is an after the fact opinion of what the law *is,* aka whether the enforcement of this law would violate the law.