J. Barris v. Stroud Twp.
218 C.D. 2016
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Nov 17, 2017Background
- Stroud Township enacted Ordinance No. 9-2011 banning the discharge of firearms within the township except for enumerated exceptions (law enforcement, hunting, ranges meeting zoning/standards, certain farmers, organized clubs), with penalties up to $600 and possible jail for nonpayment.
- Jonathan Barris sued seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging the Ordinance: (1) violates the Second Amendment and Article I, §21 of the Pennsylvania Constitution; and (2) is preempted by the Pennsylvania Uniform Firearms Act and the state range-protection statutes.
- The Township filed preliminary objections (demurrer) and the trial court sustained them, dismissing all six counts. The trial court held the Ordinance was not preempted and rejected Barris’s constitutional claims, reasoning the law did not confiscate firearms and allowed self-defense.
- Barris appealed but did not contest the trial court’s rulings on preemption (Counts I–IV); he challenged dismissal of his constitutional claims (Counts V–VI) and argued he should be allowed to amend rather than be dismissed with prejudice.
- The Commonwealth Court found the trial court failed to perform the required constitutional analysis (facial and as-applied) on Counts V–VI and vacated that portion of the order, remanding for further proceedings and directing the trial court to permit Barris a reasonable opportunity to amend those counts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly dismissed Barris’s Second Amendment and PA Const. art. I, §21 claims (Counts V–VI) without detailed constitutional analysis | Barris contended the Ordinance burdens his ability to practice firing firearms on his property (activity lawful pre-Ordinance) and raised both facial and as-applied challenges | Township relied on trial court’s view that the Ordinance neither confiscates arms nor prohibits self‑defense, and adopted the trial court’s analysis | Trial court’s dismissal of Counts V–VI vacated; remanded for constitutional analysis and further proceedings (including leave to amend) |
| Whether Barris should have been permitted to amend his complaint instead of dismissal with prejudice | Barris argued dismissal should be without prejudice and with leave to amend to better allege as-applied facts | Township did not press a contrary procedural position on appeal (adopted trial court brief) | Court directed trial court on remand to afford Barris a reasonable period to file an amended complaint as to Counts V–VI |
| Whether the Ordinance is preempted by the Firearms Act or the range-protection statutes (Counts I–IV) | Barris alleged the Ordinance improperly regulates firearm discharge and thus is preempted | Trial court found Ordinance regulates "discharge," a subject omitted from Firearms Act preemption, and does not conflict with range statutes (which address noise/nuisance) | Not challenged on appeal; trial court’s dismissal of Counts I–IV was left intact by the Commonwealth Court |
Key Cases Cited
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (recognized an individual right to possess firearms for lawful purposes such as self‑defense)
- Caba v. Weaknecht, 64 A.3d 39 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (legislative enactments carry a strong presumption of constitutionality)
- Pennsylvanians Against Gambling Expansion Fund, Inc. v. Commonwealth, 877 A.2d 383 (Pa. 2005) (standard for showing a legislative enactment clearly violates the Constitution)
- Clifton v. Allegheny County, 969 A.2d 1197 (Pa. 2009) (facial challenge requires showing no set of circumstances under which the statute would be valid)
- Peake v. Commonwealth, 132 A.3d 506 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (adopted “plainly legitimate sweep” standard for facial challenges)
- Perry v. State Civil Service Commission, 38 A.3d 942 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (Second Amendment/PA precedent recognizing limits on the right to bear arms)
- Johnson v. Allegheny Intermediate Unit, 59 A.3d 10 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (distinguishing facial and as-applied constitutional challenges)
- Petty v. Hospital Service Association of Northeast Pennsylvania, 967 A.2d 439 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (standard of review for orders sustaining preliminary objections)