Harrisburg guns.jpg

Harrisburg police displayed these guns among others seized last year in a massive warrant sweep. Harrisburg was sued over its gun ordinances by two different gun groups under a new law known as Act 192 that was struck down as unconstitutional Thursday by the Commonwealth Court.

The Commonwealth Court on Thursday struck down a controversial Pennsylvania law that allowed any legal gun owner to sue municipalities over gun regulations and force those municipalities to pay attorney fees.

The new law, known as Act 192, prompted 20 municipalities to repeal their gun ordinances to avoid litigation, but other cities stood firm, including Harrisburg, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh and Lancaster.

A group of Democratic lawmakers plus the cities of Philadelphia, Pittsburgh and Lancaster challenged the new law, contending that lawmakers didn't follow constitutional procedure for passing legislation.

Meanwhile, the National Rifle Association sued Philadelphia, Pittsburgh and Lancaster to try to force them to abandon their gun ordinances. Two Pennsylvania gun rights groups also sued Harrisburg, contending that the city's five gun ordinances are illegal because they go beyond state law.

Thursday's ruling could effectively kill those lawsuits because the plaintiffs no longer have automatic legal standing to sue now that Act 192 has been found unconstitutional, experts say.

The Commonwealth Court voted 7-0 that Act 192 violates the state's original purpose rule. The court also voted 6-1 that the law violates the state's single subject rule.

The single subject rule, a provision of the state constitution, bars the Legislature from addressing multiple unrelated matters in the same bill.

Legislators passed Act 192 in the waning hours of the session last year, tucking a series of gun provisions into a bill about the thefts of metals. The gun provisions greatly broadened who had legal standing to challenge municipalities over gun regulations and allowed plaintiffs to collect legal fees.

"In short, because Act 192 was altered to change its original purpose, it does not pass the first part of the two-part constitutional inquiry," the order written by Judge Robert Simpson said.

Check back with PennLive for updates.

UPDATE: This article was updated to clarify that the ruling means plaintiffs no longer have automatic legal standing to sue.