The state Superior Court issued a ruling earlier this month that delighted victims' rights advocates and is likely to enrage gun enthusiasts.

		On the Net Superior Court of Pennsylvania opinion in the Mueller case, in .pdf format

The decision upheld a Montgomery County judge's ruling that because James C. Mueller Jr. had a protection-from-abuse order served against him, both his weapons and a gun belonging to his father could be taken away.

The court ruled 2-1 that when a PFA order is issued, authorities can conduct searches for weapons, including in residences and vehicles that do not belong to the person accused of abuse, and confiscate anything they find.

Previously, judges typically ordered that weapons be turned over but did not authorize searches to ensure compliance.

In this case, a judge called for searches of the home, hunting lodge and automobile of James C. Mueller Sr., the father of the man named in the PFA order.

The father and son argued that the searches were not legal and that they should get their weapons back. Superior Court ruled that such searches were justified under the terms of PFA orders, saying the point of such orders is to "disarm the abuser."

The case began when Beth Ann Kelly, of Gilbertsville, Montgomery County, sought a PFA order against the younger Mueller in September 2003 after he allegedly pointed his father's loaded handgun at her and threatened to kill her.

Mueller, who lived with his parents in Zieglersville, Montgomery County, was ordered to turn over all weapons, but when police went to the home he signed a document stating there were none.

Kelly insisted there were guns in the home, as well as numchucks, brass knuckles, and three bows and arrows.

The judge issued another order directing a search of the Mueller home, vehicles and a hunting cabin in the Poconos belonging to the elder Mueller. The judge also authorized the Montgomery County Sheriff's Office to use "whatever force necessary" to carry out the order.

Several weapons were found in the searches, including a handgun belonging to the senior Mueller. He petitioned to have it returned.

"I think the ruling went far afield in holding search and seizure of property of a person not involved in the proceeding," said the Muellers' lawyer, Eric J. Cox, of Plymouth Meeting, Montgomery County. "The order didn't say turn over the pistol. It said go to each place and seize each weapon there."

Senior Judge Patrick R. Tamilia said in the majority opinion that the Protection-From-Abuse Act grants the trial court the power to require the younger Mueller to relinquish weapons.

"The court may grant any protection order ... to bring about the cessation of abuse of the plaintiff or minor children," he wrote.

Because Mueller didn't appear at his PFA hearing in October 2003 to contradict the statements of Kelly, Tamilia said the trial court had to accept the testimony of Kelly as valid.

The court said that while a PFA order does not specifically grant the court the authority to order the sheriff's department to search an abuser's home or property and forcibly remove weapons, such search and seizure fulfills the intent of PFAs.

"The fact that the father was not a party did not exempt his home, cottage and automobile from search for identified weapons which his live-in son would have had available to carry out his threats. If a court cannot reach weapons wherever an abuser resides, it nullifies the preventive thrust of the most critical section of the act, that is to disarm the abuser," the decision said.

Kim Stolfer, vice chairman of the Legislative Committee of the Pennsylvania Sportsmen's Association, disagrees with the decision.

"Due process and privacy are two of the highest safeguards against constitutional abuse," he said.

"To violate the two for some perceived gain in security is without merit. We will never stop domestic violence until we start focusing on the behavior. The system is awash in PFAs that are filed for retribution and legal advantage in the courts. People who have legitimate PFA claims get lost in the system."

Lorraine Bittner, legal director for the Women's Center and Shelter for Greater Pittsburgh, said the court's decision demonstrates that domestic violence issues are being taken very seriously.

"This has been a terrible year for domestic violence in Allegheny County," she said. "I think this decision puts teeth in the PFA law."

"I think the more aggressive the laws are, the less likely violence is to occur," said Janice Romney Farnsworth, from a hotel in London, Ontario. Farnsworth recently published "Beneath Wings of an Angel," a book that explores the difficulties of living in an abusive relationship. She was physically, emotionally and sexually abused for 15 years by her ex-husband.

"Abusers feel they have the right to behave in whatever manner they feel," she continued. "When they are angry, if they feel like hitting you, then that's what they do.

"My ex-husband would erupt over little things. Once, I criticized him, so he grabbed a golf club and struck me across the knee. I was seven months pregnant. He continued to beat me because I couldn't get up. After calling me a 'pathetic ... ,' he brought our two children in the room, and said, 'Look at you mother crying. She wants us to feel sorry for her.' "

Cox said he is waiting for his clients to decide if they'll appeal the decision.