Limerick Township Violates Preemption!?

[GunLawyer001]

Dan, I have to stay relatively anonymous if I'm going to hand out free legal advice, but you do know me in an "LLC" context.

The advice that I give on the Internet is as accurate as I can make it without investing hours of research. I share it freely, but I don't want the liability of thousands of people running off, applying my general advice to their specific situation, then demanding that I fix whetever they've done.

So I'm anon to the public, and if you could keep it that way, it would be appreciated.

[exceltoexcel]

I don't agree with that at all. They can make any section of land off limits by passing a law, while its public land its purpose isn't for public consumption.

[billamj]

Originally Posted by exceltoexcel

I don't agree with that at all. They can make any section of land off limits by passing a law, while its public land its purpose isn't for public consumption.

I will withold all comment going forward. We have a legal eagle who gave us his opinion and while I may not like it, I would hope that his being a professional would add quite a bit of weight to his statements. That being the case, I will defer to him.

[exceltoexcel]

Originally Posted by billamj

But they are not saying that you can not own or transport within their jurisdiction, they are saying that you may not posess one on twonship land. We may not like it, but this is a case where it is what it is. We could always request from our various state legislators that they expand the definitions, but until they do we have to go with state law as it has been found.

The law says they can't prohibit possession either, on town land or otherwise, it's very clear.

The definition is clear, it is a state law, it says in no manner can they restrict possession, transportation, ownership or transfer of firearms.

I don't understand how that is confusing...or how that can possibly be misinterpreted at all.

It seems very straight to the point, if they are claiming private land they can't pass a law pertaining to private land owned by them, I can't imprison you for violating one of my private land rules neither could they.

Besides the courts have made it very clear that it lies in the hands of the state only now legislation or LITIGATION (Private)

One more point they are saying I can't transport it, there is a road that goes through the park. That has to be considered public land, its a public road, not one just for use by the park.

[ChamberedRound]

Originally Posted by danp

If GunLawyer01 is who I think it is they are fully qualified to answer such a question and I'm inclined to give them a very, very large benefit of the doubt in knowing the law better than all the rest of us combined.

We might not like what they're saying, but last time I checked they're the only lawyer here and they're giving us exactly what we were hoping for: An informed legal opinion that would cost us boatloads of money to get otherwise so let's give them some respect here. Questioning their credentials simply because their legal interpretation differs from the one we were hoping is just not polite.

+1

I know GunLawyer001 is telling us something we don't want to hear, but I'm inclined to believe him as well. He's presented the argument clearly and concisely IMHO, and in a manner which leads me to believe he definitely knows what he's talking about.

GunLawyer001,
A lot of us thought we case a valid gripe against Limerick, and to hear from a lawyer that our argument doesn't hold water is tough to swallow.

Please be patient with us, as your experience and counsel are very much appreciated.

excel,
My take on GunLawyer001's comments is this:
- The Town Council members are like the officer's of a company, and they have the right to manage OUR land as a private entity, as we've given them the authority. I don't necessarily agree that a public park can be managed like private property, but if GunLawyer001 says there's case law to support, it's a closed book.
- If Limerick's Ordinance tried to ban all possession of firearms ANYWHERE in Limerick, we'd have a case. Because they're doing their job (managing the park), we have no case.

If I've said anything in error, GunLawyer001, please correct me.

[exceltoexcel]

I still contend that the law is perfectly clear that they cannot pass any laws that prohibit ownership, possession, transport or transfer of firearms in any manner. I have posted various cases which that was upheld by the supreme court. I have yet to see one bit of anything that is clear and concise to his point from any law publication what so ever.

So if you disagree then we have to agree to disagree, I for one need some kind of proof they have this authority and haven't seen one ounce of it only his opinion. However, I have seen many laws and court cases that do agree that the DO NOT have the legal right to do so.

[exceltoexcel]

I contacted an attorney and his comments were such that I now understand the complexity of the issue, while there might be cause to attack the law itself it would do no good because as the managers of the property they still would have the rights to ban guns from the property regardless of the law and if it was posted as such then you could be prosecuted under criminal trespass as a summery offence (which could escalate if you resisted to leave to a crime). The argument that the law is unlawful might possibly very slim have some validity but the end result would be the same. So this is a dead issue, I'm still convinced the law is illegal but I am also convinced that if they posted a no guns sign that they could get you for trespass. So I concede the point, with predudice, cause i still uphold the idea that they cannot use firearm possesion in any way for even trespass counts because the law prohibits it. Ugh this is really just an end-run around the preemption law.

I might add that this attorney seems to be very well versed and I was impressed with his answers and helpfulness. If I ever have a problem in the future I know who I'll be calling!

The same argument still kills me, if it says they can't regulate it in any manner then why oh why can they regulate it even on property in which we've given them rights to manage even as a condition of trespass?

[LittleRedToyota]

sometimes i wonder why we even bother to have laws in this country anymore...given that the government can just ignore (er, i mean always finds ways around) them.

given what gunlawyer001 has said (and i don't doubt he is right), what's to stop a city from making it illegal to possess firearms on the city's sidewalks or roads?

after all, if a city park is private property owned by the city, and thus exempt from pre-emption, why aren't sidewalks and roads private poperty, and thus exempt from the pre-emption?

so, a city cannot stop you from having firearms in your house, but you can never leave your propery with them. woohoo!! what a crock.

plus, what's up with the state supreme court citing the PA constitution clause saying that the "right to keep and bear arms shall not be questioned" and then turning right around and saying the proper forum for questioning the right to keep and bear arms is the general assembly?

hellooooo....are they really too blind to see the internal inconsistency in that? do they really not understand that if the consitution says the right shall not be questioned, that means there is NO proper forum for questioning the right.

when are we, as a state and as a country, going to realize the proper role of consitutions in constitutional governments?

argh.

[exceltoexcel]

Lawyers to contact if you have a need

http://www.building-tux.com/dsmjd/law/lawr_list.htm

Little read i agree they could then very well argue that they could, since managing the side walk system banning firearms on the side walks or roads. This still seems fishy to me.

[exceltoexcel]

I've contacted the VCDL in hopes they can explain to me how they got around the private ownership rights of townships/city buldings in there own cases. Perhaps they know of some nuance in the law that prohibits using it as a defence of laws that violate preemption and trespass