Hartley Hill Hunt Club v. Ritchie County

• Decision Date: 11 May 2007
• Docket Number: No. 33176.,33176.
• Citation: 647 S.E.2d 818
• Parties: HARTLEY HILL HUNT CLUB, Nolan Aleshire, Isaac Staats, Jack Summers, and the American Civil Liberties Union of West Virginia Plaintiffs below, Appellants v. The COUNTY COMMISSION OF RITCHIE COUNTY, Defendant below, Appellee and West Virginia Farm Bureau, Inc., Fayette County Farm Bureau, Gilmer County Farm Bureau, Mercer County Farm Bureau, Nicholas County Farm Bureau, Preston County Farm Bureau, Ritchie County Farm Bureau, Summers County Farm Bureau, Wood County Farm Bureau, John L. Kessler, Walter Ashby, Arnold Smith, Chris Nash, Paul Canterbury, Thomas Keener, Hicle Rexrode, Philip L. Gregg, Danny Montgomery, Arden Hodge, Lynwood Ireland, Carl Amick, Jack H. Lester, Gary E. Oates, and David H. Lawson, Intervening defendants below, Appellees.
• Court: West Virginia Supreme Court

647 S.E.2d 818

HARTLEY HILL HUNT CLUB, Nolan Aleshire, Isaac Staats, Jack Summers, and the American Civil Liberties Union of West Virginia Plaintiffs below, Appellants v. The COUNTY COMMISSION OF RITCHIE COUNTY, Defendant below, Appellee and West Virginia Farm Bureau, Inc., Fayette County Farm Bureau, Gilmer County Farm Bureau, Mercer County Farm Bureau, Nicholas County Farm Bureau, Preston County Farm Bureau, Ritchie County Farm Bureau, Summers County Farm Bureau, Wood County Farm Bureau, John L. Kessler, Walter Ashby, Arnold Smith, Chris Nash, Paul Canterbury, Thomas Keener, Hicle Rexrode, Philip L. Gregg, Danny Montgomery, Arden Hodge, Lynwood Ireland, Carl Amick, Jack H. Lester, Gary E. Oates, and David H. Lawson, Intervening defendants below, Appellees.

No. 33176.

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

Submitted April 17, 2007.

Decided May 11, 2007.

Syllabus by the Court

1. "Where the issue on an appeal from the circuit court is clearly a question of law or involving an interpretation of a statute, we apply a de novo standard of review." Syllabus Point 1, Chrystal R.M. v. Charlie A.L., 194 W.Va. 138, 459 S.E.2d 415 (1995).

2. "In considering the constitutionality of a legislative enactment, courts must exercise due restraint, in recognition of the principle of the separation of powers in government among the judicial, legislative and executive branches. Every reasonable construction must be resorted to by the courts in order to sustain constitutionality, and any reasonable doubt must be resolved in favor of the constitutionality of the legislative enactment in question. Courts are not concerned with questions relating to legislative policy. The general powers of the legislature, within constitutional limits, are almost plenary. In considering the constitutionality of an act of the legislature, the negation of legislative power must appear beyond reasonable doubt." Syllabus Point 1, Appalachian Power Co. v. Gainer, 149 W.Va. 740, 143 S.E.2d 351 (1965).

3. "The West Virginia legislature may, through the valid exercise of its police power, reasonably regulate the right of a person to keep and bear arms in order to promote the health, safety and welfare of all citizens of this State, provided that the restrictions or regulations imposed do not frustrate the constitutional freedoms guaranteed by article III, section 22 of the West Virginia Constitution, known as the `Right to Keep and Bear Arms Amendment.'" Syllabus Point 4, State ex rel. City of Princeton v. Buckner, 180 W.Va. 457, 377 S.E.2d 139 (1988).

4. "The police power is the power of the state, inherent in every sovereignty, to enact laws, within constitutional limits, to promote the welfare of its citizens. The police power is difficult to define precisely, because it is extensive, elastic and constantly evolving to meet new and increasing demands for its exercise for the benefit of society and to promote the general welfare. It embraces the power of the state to preserve and to promote the general welfare and it is concerned with whatever affects the peace, security, safety, morals, health and general welfare of the community. It cannot be circumscribed within narrow limits nor can it be confined to precedents resting alone on conditions of the past. As society becomes increasingly complex and as advancements are made, the police power must of necessity evolve, develop and expand, in the public interest, to meet such conditions." Syllabus Point 5, Appalachian Power Co. v. Gainer, 149 W.Va. 740, 143 S.E.2d 351 (1965).

5. Article III, Section 22 of the West Virginia Constitution protects a person's right to keep and bear arms for lawful hunting. This clause preserves the State's right, through the exercise of its police power, to enact reasonable laws defining what forms of hunting are lawful.

6. "`"Where economic rights are concerned, we look to see whether the classification is a rational one based on social, economic historic or geographic factors, whether it bears a reasonable relationship to a proper governmental purpose, and whether all persons within the class are treated equally. Where such classification is rational and bears the requisite reasonable relationship, the statute does not violate Section 10 of Article III of the West Virginia Constitution, which is our equal protection clause." Syllabus Point 7, [as modified,] Atchinson v. Erwin, , 302 S.E.2d 78 (1983).' Syllabus Point 4, as modified, Hartsock-Flesher Candy Co. v. Wheeling Wholesale Grocery Co., 174 W.Va. 538, 328 S.E.2d 144 (1984)." Syllabus Point 4, Gibson v. West Virginia Dept. of Highways, 185 W.Va. 214, 406 S.E.2d 440 (1991).

Jason Huber, Forman & Huber, L.C., Charleston, for the Appellants.

Steven A. Jones, Prosecuting Attorney, Harrisville, for the Ritchie County Commission.

Joseph S. Beeson, David L. Yaussy, Robinson & McElwee, PLLC, Charleston, for the Intervening Appellees.

STARCHER, J.:

In this appeal from the Circuit Court of Ritchie County, we are asked to examine the constitutionality of a statute that prohibits Sunday hunting in certain circumstances. The circuit judge entered a declaratory judgment finding that the statute, W.Va.Code, 20-2-5(28) [2001], was constitutional.

After careful review of the briefs of the parties, the record created in the court below, and the arguments of the attorneys,¹ we too find that W.Va. Code, 20-2-5(28) is constitutional. As set forth below, we affirm the circuit judge's judgment.

I. Facts & Background

In the Spring of 2001, the West Virginia Legislature amended an existing law that set out numerous hunting and fishing regulations.² The amendment added two subsections, both of which pertained to limitations on hunting on Sunday.

The first subsection—W.Va.Code, 20-2-5(27)—eliminated hunting on any publicly-owned land on Sundays.³

The second subsection—W.Va.Code, 20-2-5(28)—provided that each of West Virginia's fifty-five counties could hold an election to determine whether hunting on privately-owned land on Sundays would be prohibited.⁴

In May 2002, pursuant to W.Va.Code, 20-2-5(28), the Ritchie County Commission held an election to determine whether Sunday hunting on private land would be authorized in Ritchie County. Voting on a ballot identical to that specified the statute, the voters chose to prohibit Sunday hunting by a vote of 1,454 to 859.⁵

The appellants in this case (and the plaintiffs in the court below) include the Hartley Hill Hunt Club, a private hunting club with about fifty members which rents 2,034 acres in Ritchie County. It appears that the members of the Hartley Hill Hunt Club are West Virginia citizens, but they do not live in Ritchie County.⁶ Appellant Nolan Aleshire is a West Virginia citizen who owns land in Ritchie County. However, the appellants' complaint states that Mr. Aleshire does not reside there, but rather "spends numerous days over a variety of hunting seasons ... hunting and recreating" on his property. The one appellant that is differently situated from the others is the American Civil Liberties Union of West Virginia, which is an organization dedicated to defending citizens' rights that are contained in the United States and West Virginia Constitutions.

On July 21, 2003, the appellants brought a lawsuit against the appellee (and defendant-below) Ritchie County Commission seeking a declaratory judgment. The West Virginia Farm Bureau, as well as several local farm bureaus and their individual members, were later granted permission to intervene in the case as defendants. The appellants essentially claimed that the West Virginia Constitution contained numerous provisions that protect a citizen's right to hunt on private land. The appellants argued that by holding an election under W.Va.Code, 20-2-5(28) to bar Sunday hunting on private land, the Ritchie County Commission had violated those constitutional provisions. The appellants asked the circuit judge to issue an order declaring the statutory subsection invalid and unconstitutional.

In late 2005, both the appellants and the appellees filed motions for summary judgment. After hearing arguments from both sides, on February 9, 2006, the circuit judge entered an order granting the appellees' motion for summary judgment, and denying the appellants' motion. The circuit judge concluded that W.Va.Code, 20-2-5(28) did not violate any part of the West Virginia Constitution.

The appellants now appeal the circuit judge's February 9, 2006 order.

II. Standard of Review

The appellants in this case ask us to review several arguments about the law, namely whether W.Va.Code, 20-2-5(28) violates the West Virginia Constitution.

Because this appeal presents questions of law involving the interpretation of a statute and the interpretation of the West Virginia Constitution, we may review all parts of the circuit judge's decision. As we have said before, "[w]here the issue on an appeal from the circuit court is clearly a question of law or involving an interpretation of a statute, we apply a de novo standard of review." Syllabus Point 1, Chrystal R.M. v. Charlie A.L., 194 W.Va. 138, 459 S.E.2d 415 (1995).

When this Court is asked to weigh the constitutionality of a statute, we are guided in our deliberations by several fundamental principles. These principles were summarized by the Court in Syllabus Point 1 of Appalachian Power Co. v. Gainer, 149 W.Va. 740, 143 S.E.2d 351 (1965):

In considering the constitutionality of a legislative enactment, courts must exercise due restraint, in recognition of the principle of the separation of powers in government among the judicial, legislative and executive branches. Every reasonable construction must be resorted to by the courts in order to sustain constitutionality, and any reasonable doubt must be resolved in favor of the constitutionality of the legislative enactment in question. Courts are not concerned with questions relating to legislative policy. The general powers of the legislature,...