Most everybody can agree that if the government is permitted to break the law simply because it believes it has a good idea, the people are in a great deal of trouble. Today, Judge Dowling issued a ruling granting the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction as to three of the five contested ordinances. Additionally, the stay that the City was quite literally banking on was denied. As a result, while the lawsuit moves forward, these ordinances are suspended. The Defendants (the City) are forbidden from enforcing these ordinances unless and until the Court determines otherwise.

Those seeking a preliminary injunction must meet a very high standard. In fact, the standard is more than is required of a party to succeed on the merits of their claim. This high standard exists because the relief takes effect immediately, without the issues being fully litigated. The law requires the party seeking the preliminary injunction to demonstrate that is has met several prerequisites in order to succeed.

Under SEIU Healthcare Pennsylvania v. Com, a Pennsylvania Supreme Court case decided very recently (November of 2014), when the government breaks the law, these prerequisites are all but certainly met. In its reasoning, the Court held that “[w]hen the Legislature declares particular conduct to be unlawful, it is tantamount to categorizing it as injurious to the public.”

Today, in its granting of the preliminary injunction, the Court agreed that at least three of the ordinances are in direct contravention to the legislative mandate provided by 18 Pa.C.S. § 6120, Pennsylvania’s preemption statute. Judge Dowling’s opinion noted that the preemption provisions of this statute have been, and will remain the letter of the law, regardless of any hypothetical determinations regarding Act 192. Furthermore, as required in order to receive a preliminary injunction, the Court concluded that the Plaintiffs have established a clear right to relief, and have shown that they are likely to prevail on the merits with regards to the three ordinances enjoined.

There has been a misconception on the part of some media outlets that because the Court denied the preliminary injunction with respect to two of the ordinances, that the Court has found them to be lawful. This is by no means the case. Rather, the Court has merely found that the Plaintiffs did not meet the heightened standard demanded by a preliminary injunction. This does not preclude the Plaintiffs from being awarded permanent injunctive relief after the issues have been litigated. In fact, it seems that the Court has telegraphed that the “lost or stolen” ordinance is in great trouble.

The Court additionally declined to stay the litigation. Although the City requested that the action be placed on hold while the Commonwealth Court determines the constitutionality of Act 192, the Court found that unnecessary. Thus, the litigation will move forward.

We appreciate the overwhelming support we have received throughout this litigation. Today’s ruling serves as a victory for the Plaintiffs, law abiding gun owners and anybody who has an interest in the government following the law.