Limerick Township Violates Preemption!?

[exceltoexcel]

Originally Posted by LittleRedToyota

i would be willing to drive to limerick to take part in that. (not even sure where it is, but i'll find it on the map and meet yinz there.)

Limerick is between king of prussia on route 422 and reading. Near collegeville trapp royserford and pottstown. 45 minutes west/north of philly.

I'd be in for a demonstration so long as we got the legal permits to do so.

[knight0334]

If you guys can wait til late spring/summer, you can count me in too. ..being as it'll be a bit of a drive for me.

[exceltoexcel]

If I had 30 people I'd do it then I'd wait until I had 30 more people and do it in the spring/summer for you.

It is nice to know some people support the idea of stopping this nonsense by at least by posting favorably, it would be even better to see it in a legal demonstration.

Letters, email, posting all good stuff, but getting of our rear ends and planting them at a town meeting would have 10 times more impact. If we had 30 members sitting at the limerick township meeting, well we'd get people motivated to do more.

Hunters might not think that this law has anything to do with them, try to drive on that park road with your shotgun in the rear window.

Of course I still hold that no limerick police officer that I know of would even bother to stop you and if they did they are not the type of police department that disrespects its citizens. I don't want that to be misunderstood. Like I said these officers, the ones I've met, are the good guys!

I also want to add the the board of supervisors probably aren't anti-gun in the first place either, they probably just made an error and didn't know it. They don't need to be slammed for making the error they just have to be encouraged to fix it.


It is just about the law and nothing else.

[TcRoc]

I don't feel like reading all this,,so when's the next meeting Ted?
And What's your plans for the weekend?,want to shoot down to the gun show??

[exceltoexcel]

Sorry i didn't respond earlier, I missed your post here.

I believe the next meeting is today at 7:00, however I'm not going to go until I get more solid information on the situation. I'm still looking for points of order in which to conduct myself during the meeting and I'm still checking with other legal authorities as to what options are legitimately available to me. however if you are so inclined to go to the meeting without me please do so.

As for shooting, I'll get back to you. I'm too busy with the season and end of year workloads to plan anything more than a day in advance. I'll drop you a line if I find myself with enough free time to get to the range.

For everyone else, I just got an update!

I received a call back from the attorney generals office.

The Deputy Attorney General George Zaiser called to discuss the preemption debate.

He couldn't officially give me an opinion, however he did note that there are no cases regarding this in anyway to refer to. He also made both arguments but seemed to lean towards a violation of preemption as best he could. I wish I could've recorded the conversation for everyone. He did say that if someone violated the statute he would think the argument would have some validity at the very least, but no one wants to be the first test case =).

He was extremely helpful and polite and he didn't seem anti gun at all to me in any way. He seemed to not allow the element of the matter "guns" to bias the discussion, rather he thought only of the law and its meaning.

I will say this without a doubt its was refreshing to hear that he routinely calls individuals back that present questions to him. Truly fantastic to hear a government employee that actually cares about what he does and extend himself to the public!

He gets my vote =)

The argument seems to have heavy validity, however I could easily screw it up for everyone if I approach it incorrectly. I have to act responsibly and I think I need to hire a lawyer to make sure the I's are dotted and the T's are crossed.

[danp]

Ted,
I just wanted to say that you have really grabbed the reins here and gotten A LOT of work done. Keep up the good work!

[billamj]

Originally Posted by danp

Ted,
I just wanted to say that you have really grabbed the reins here and gotten A LOT of work done. Keep up the good work!

+1000000 on that. Ted, There is no doubt in my mind that no matter how this question is eventually answered you will have done everything in your power to ensure that a truly correct and viable answer is given to this question and that everything is properly addressed.

[GunLawyer001]

Originally Posted by exceltoexcel

Sorry i didn't respond earlier, I missed your post here.

The argument seems to have heavy validity, however I could easily screw it up for everyone if I approach it incorrectly. I have to act responsibly and I think I need to hire a lawyer to make sure the I's are dotted and the T's are crossed.

Excellent point. Read up on the Quilici vs. Village of Morton Grove case, at

http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/...0309221255.asp

Although Quilici disputes some of the allagations, it certainly shows that a plaintiff can lose more than just his own case. If there are currently no precedents either way under Pennsylvania law, you certainly don't want to be the first to establish a bad one that hurts gun owners.

[exceltoexcel]

Well obviously I want to win.

However if i lost and it set a horrible precedent I wouldn't think of that as a defeat at all.

Lets say the court ruled that the township could pass laws regarding township run public property IE Parks sidewalks town hall etc.. Which would set a precedent allowing the banning of guns on sidewalks streets whatever then you can guarantee Philadelphia would jump on it and pass laws against guns at record pace. The backlash from gun owners to the state should create an even stronger preemption law (not that i think "in any manner" isn't strong enough to say that home rule does not allow any gun legislation).

If the people don't get upset enough to fight for there rights then they don't deserve them. Sort of like this issue, I doubt too many people care if they can or cannot carry a gun in limerick or Montgomery county parks. I say this because if they did I wouldn't be standing here with the only lit torch. Rather I'd be lost in a crowd of torches and pitch forks.

If I "lose" this fight then I would not feel poorly if the right of others are taken away as a result, if i do everything in my power to do it correctly, because those that would lose their rights have done so through their own apathy.

It seemed clear that the residents of PA didn't want local townships making gun laws, period. If they are not going to enforce that wish then that clarity fades, which is what we have here. A faded right, who is going to fight for it? Well if I'm going to do it alone, then it is only going to be done my way. However, If we do it together then it'll get done!

"Steps off soap box"

[exceltoexcel]

New information from OHIO supports limitiation of "Home rule"

This is a simular to what several others have told me.

The problem is that "home rule" was never intended to allow cities to do whatever they want and thumb their noses at the rest of the state. Home Rule was intended to allow cities to decide whether skateboarding on the sidewalk is a nuisance or how much to pay their fire chief.

Home rule does not extend to deciding what constitutional rights (whether protected by the US or Ohio Constitutions) their citizens are entitled to. A city can't decide that a newspaper delivered to the city can't criticize the mayor. They can't decide that their local police department doesn't need a warrant to search your house. They can't decide that their female citizens can't vote. And they can't decide that you don't have the right to carry a firearm for self-defense if you choose to.

One argument that they raise is that private property owners can make decision they can't. A private property owner can prohibit a CHL holder from coming on to their property, but a city can't prohibit a CHL holder from visiting a city park.

Guess what folks, there are LOTS of differences between public and private property. Why? Because private property is owned by one (or a few) citizens, while public property is owned by all citizens.

If I want to decide nobody wearing a Pittsburg Steelers jersey may set foot on my property, then you'll never see black and gold on my land. But let Cleveland City Council pass an ordinance prohibiting Steelers fans from entering City Limits and watch the lawsuits fly. These mayors and city council members need to remember that "city property" is not owned by them, it is owned by the citizens.

But, let us take a look at the bigger picture for the moment. First, the Ohio CHL law has been on effect for over two years now. Nearly 90,000 Ohioans have been issued Concealed Handgun licenses. How many cases have there been where a CHL holder has committed a crime in a park with their firearm? I haven't heard of a single one.

Is the argument that they "might" commit a crime a valid one? About as valid as the fact that someone might hit another person with a baseball bat. Should we ban baseball bats from city parks and close all the baseball diamonds? Or is it sufficient that it is already against the law to assault someone, regardless of what weapon is used?

Crime will happen regardless (newsflash: crime is already illegal, making it more illegal isn't going to change anything). The only thing banning CHL holders from carrying their firearm with them is going to accomplish is to ensure the crime is successful. Disarming a victim does not protect the victim from harm.

Most states have preemption. Uniform gun laws protect against accidental infractions. The Ohio legislature has spoken loud and clear by overriding Governor Taft's veto. Fighting this in court is not only bad public policy, but a waste of taxpayer money which could be better spent on more productive endeavors to produce a real benefit to the public good.

There is a time and a place for Home Rule. Fighting gun law preemption isn't it.

Many local ohio municipalities have since backed away from park gun bans