226 A.3d 569
Pa.2020Background
- This is a concurring and dissenting statement by Justice Wecht (joined by Justices Donohue and Dougherty) in No. 63 MM 2020 challenging Governor Wolf’s March 19, 2020 Order closing all non-life‑sustaining businesses during COVID‑19.
- The Governor’s Order made no express provision allowing licensed firearm dealers to continue in‑person operations at their licensed premises.
- Under federal and Pennsylvania law, retail firearm transfers typically require an in‑person transaction at the dealer’s licensed premises and completion of a background check, so remote completion is generally not possible.
- Justice Wecht reasons that the practical effect of the Order is an absolute, indefinite prohibition on retail firearm acquisitions in Pennsylvania, burdening a constitutionally protected right under the Second Amendment and Article I, § 21 of the Pennsylvania Constitution.
- Justice Wecht concurs with the Court’s disposition that claims premised on lawyers’ inability to practice have been effectively mooted by subsequent clarification, but he dissents insofar as he believes the Order fails to accommodate firearm purchases and thus raises a live constitutional deprivation.
- He urges the Governor to craft narrower, public‑health‑compatible accommodations (e.g., limited in‑person procedures) rather than a blanket bar on retail transfers.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Governor’s closure Order, by allowing no in‑person operations for licensed firearm dealers, effects a prohibition on retail firearm acquisitions that infringes the Second Amendment and PA Const. art. I, § 21 | Order imposes an effective, absolute prohibition on lawful retail firearm purchases because transfers require in‑person completion and background checks | Order is a public‑health measure closing non‑life‑sustaining businesses; any burdens are incidental and justified by emergency response needs | Justice Wecht: the Order imposes a constitutionally problematic complete prohibition and the Governor should provide limited, safe accommodations; the majority mooted other claims and did not adopt this remedy |
| Whether claims about attorneys’ ability to practice law justified emergency relief | Attorneys’ work was disrupted by the Order, implicating constitutional/regulatory concerns about the practice of law | Governor clarified scope later, reducing the claimed injury | Court: those claims were effectively mooted by the Governor’s subsequent clarification (Wecht joins this portion) |
Key Cases Cited
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (holds the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms for self‑defense)
- McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) (holds the Second Amendment is incorporated against the states via the Fourteenth Amendment)
- Bateman v. Perdue, 881 F. Supp. 2d 709 (E.D.N.C. 2012) (applied Heller to invalidate an emergency prohibition on firearm sales as burdening conduct protected by the Second Amendment)