Although one justice said he’s “troubled by the uncertainty” of Gov. Tom Wolf’s order closing non-life-sustaining businesses to contain the coronavirus, the state Supreme Court has turned aside two legal challenges to that edict.

First, it has denied as moot challenges that were filed Friday to the part of Wolf’s March 19 order closing attorneys’ offices. A modification Wolf issued allowing lawyers to work in their own offices addresses that issue, the justices wrote.

Secondly, in a spit decision, the court refused to approve a plea by gun shop owners to be allowed to continue conducting their businesses. Justices David N. Wecht, Christine Donohue and Kevin M. Dougherty lodged a dissenting opinion on that issue, arguing that the closure order infringes on the public’s constitutional right to bear arms.

The Supreme Court’s ruling came just before state law enforcement officers were to begin enforcing the governor’s wide-ranging closure order Monday. State officials estimate nearly 10,000 businesses are seeking exemptions from that edict.

The challenges filed Friday came from West Shore attorney William Costopoulos, who focused on the closure demand for lawyers, and from civil rights attorney Joshua Prince, who took on that issue and represented gun shop owners in their fight against the demand to shut down the face-to-face transactions needed to ply their trade.

The governor’s shutdown demand has drawn considerable criticism, including from Republican politicians and business groups, and was modified in several respects over the weekend. It is still rather comprehensive, however. Wolf said it is needed to try to curb the creeping spread of the virus.

In his dissenting opinion on the gun shop closure issue, Wecht cited the constitutional right of Americans to be armed if they choose. Wolf’s shutdown order prevents firearms dealers from conducting their trade, which must occur face-to-face, the justice noted.

“Unlike the vast majority of other items, the sale and transfer of firearms sold at retail cannot be completed merely by way of telecommunication and mailing under existing law,” Wecht wrote. “Under federal firearm laws, a licensed firearm dealer may transfer a firearm to a purchaser who does not appear in person at the licensed premises only when a background check is not required to transfer the firearm, and both the dealer and the purchaser reside in the same state.”

“Quite simply, if firearm dealers are not able to conduct any business in-person at their licensed premises, then no transfers of firearms can be completed,” he continued. “This amounts to an absolute and indefinite prohibition upon the acquisition of firearms by the citizens of this commonwealth—a result in clear tension with the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution” and the Pennsylvania constitution.

Wecht recommended Wolf alter his order to allow “our citizens to continue to exercise this constitutional right.”

“Just as the Governor has permitted restaurants to offer take-out service but restricted dine-in options, the Governor may limit the patronage of firearm retailers to the completion of the portions of a transfer that must be conducted in-person,” Wecht suggested. “Such an accommodation may be effectuated while preserving sensible restrictions designed to slow the spread of COVID-19, but nonetheless provide a legal avenue for the purchase and sale of firearms, thus avoiding an impermissible intrusion upon a fundamental constitutional right.”