151 A.3d 1172
Pa. Commw. Ct.2016Background
- Lower Merion Township enacted a 2011 ordinance banning carrying or discharging firearms in township parks without a special permit, authorizing police removal and civil fines.
- Firearm Owners Against Crime (FOAC) and individual members held a rally in a Township park carrying firearms; no citations were issued.
- FOAC sued seeking declaratory and injunctive relief (pre-enforcement) arguing the ordinance is preempted by 18 Pa.C.S. § 6120(a) (UFA) and violates Article I, § 21 of the Pennsylvania Constitution; they moved for a preliminary injunction.
- The trial court denied the preliminary injunction as unripe/speculative and relied in part on Minich; it found FOAC failed to show immediate and irreparable harm or a clear right to relief.
- The Commonwealth Court majority reversed, holding Ortiz and City of Philadelphia control: § 6120(a) preempts local regulation of firearms in any manner, so FOAC demonstrated a clear right to relief and met the preliminary-injunction prerequisites.
- A dissent argued the majority misapplied precedent (Minich, Wolfe), emphasized property-owner/control-of-lands distinctions, and would have affirmed because the ordinance had not been enforced and FOAC’s injury was speculative.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the township ordinance is preempted by the UFA (§6120(a)) | Ordinance regulates firearm possession in parks and is therefore preempted; statewide preemption bars any municipal regulation of firearms | Ordinance targets unlawful possession or is an exercise of property-control (not general firearm regulation), so §6120(a) does not preempt it | Majority: Preempted — Ortiz and City of Philadelphia bar municipal regulation of firearm possession in any manner; plaintiff likely to succeed |
| Whether FOAC showed immediate and irreparable harm for preliminary relief | Enactment and continued existence of an unlawful ordinance is per se irreparable harm; FOAC conducted a rally in violation of the ordinance | No enforcement or threat of enforcement occurred; harm is speculative | Majority: Violation of statute constitutes per se irreparable harm and injunctive relief is appropriate |
| Whether FOAC has standing to bring a pre-enforcement challenge | FOAC members actually violated the ordinance at a rally (even without citation), so they have injury and standing | Township notes no prosecutions or threats and labels injury speculative | Majority: FOAC has standing because members committed the operative act (rally) despite lack of enforcement; dissent disagreed but court did not raise standing sua sponte |
| Whether the township may restrict firearms on its own property (property-owner rule) | UFA contains no property-owner exception; Ortiz/City of Philadelphia control and preempt municipal attempts to regulate firearms even on municipal property | Township relies on Wolfe/Minich: municipalities acting as property owners may restrict conduct on their lands and may regulate unlawful possession | Majority: Property-owner argument unavailing here; UFA preempts township regulation of firearms on parks; dissent would treat Minich/Wolfe as controlling for property-owner restrictions |
Key Cases Cited
- Ortiz v. Commonwealth, 545 Pa. 279, 681 A.2d 152 (Pa. 1996) (statewide preemption: General Assembly precluded municipalities from regulating firearm ownership/possession)
- National Rifle Ass'n v. City of Philadelphia, 977 A.2d 78 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (applies Ortiz to reject municipal ordinances that effectively regulate firearms despite statutory wording referencing "lawful" activity)
- Minich v. County of Jefferson, 869 A.2d 1141 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005) (county ordinance restricting firearms in courthouse held not preempted where it regulated conduct already unlawful under state law)
- Wolfe v. Township of Salisbury, 880 A.2d 62 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005) (municipal control of hunting on township-owned parks was a proprietary action not subject to preemption under the Game Law)
- National Rifle Ass'n v. City of Pittsburgh, 999 A.2d 1256 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (standing analysis for pre-enforcement challenges; speculative future harm insufficient for standing)
- Dillon v. City of Erie, 83 A.3d 467 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (enumerates prerequisites for preliminary injunction and standards for injunctive relief)
- Leach v. Commonwealth, 141 A.3d 426 (Pa. 2016) (addressed constitutionality of a later amendment to the UFA; referenced as background about statutory amendments but §6120(a) remained valid)