Limerick Township Violates Preemption!?

[JayBell]

question here:

Has anyone with actual LEGAL training and knowledge taken a look at the pre-emption law versus setting a rule on SPECIFIC properties owned by the local municipalities, open for public use, with certain restrictions?

pre-emption prevents limerick from making a law prohibiting ownership in ALL of Limerick, but it does not prevent them from placing restrictions on individual properties the twp owns.
local court CAN post a no firearms, same with schools, or other county owned facilities that are twp owned, but open for public use.

if they can say no dogs, or fireworks, or fighting, or nudity, etc

might want to do that, before moving real far on with something like a court case.

Dan, I had a conversation with you-know-who the lawyer on this issue, and he had some interesting points, as expressed above about twp owned properties that are for limited public use.

perhaps paying for a consult on the issue may be worth the time if someone is going to pursue the issue farther than a twp meeting, or even a second meeting with the township.

I assure you, the twp has a lawyer on retainer for stuff like this, you want one too.

jjust a suggestion

[danp]

Originally Posted by JayBell

question here:

Has anyone with actual LEGAL training and knowledge taken a look at the pre-emption law versus setting a rule on SPECIFIC properties owned by the local municipalities, open for public use, with certain restrictions?

pre-emption prevents limerick from making a law prohibiting ownership in ALL of Limerick, but it does not prevent them from placing restrictions on individual properties the twp owns.
local court CAN post a no firearms, same with schools, or other county owned facilities that are twp owned, but open for public use.

if they can say no dogs, or fireworks, or fighting, or nudity, etc

might want to do that, before moving real far on with something like a court case.

Dan, I had a conversation with you-know-who the lawyer on this issue, and he had some interesting points, as expressed above about twp owned properties that are for limited public use.

perhaps paying for a consult on the issue may be worth the time if someone is going to pursue the issue farther than a twp meeting, or even a second meeting with the township.

I assure you, the twp has a lawyer on retainer for stuff like this, you want one too.

jjust a suggestion

Unfortuantely we don't have the money to pay lawyers yet so we're just trying to do the best we can.

(a) General rule.--No county, municipality or township may in any manner regulate the lawful ownership, possession, transfer or transportation of firearms, ammunition or ammunition components when carried or transported for purposes not prohibited by the laws of this Commonwealth.

The law seems pretty clear to me that townships can't regulate the lawful transport of firearms in town parks, but I'll be the first to admit I'm not a lawyer.

Hopefully one day we'll have the budget to hire lawyers for things like this, but until then I'm not sure what other option we have than to try to raise issues on our own using our best understanding, unless 'you know who' is willing to donate his time. I've never asked because he's not a personal friend and never signed up for the forum (that I know of) so I figured he wasn't interested.

[Statkowski]

I do believe the phrase "in any manner" eliminates the difference between all of a county/township/borough and part of a county/township/borough.

[JayBell]

if the park has a public raod through the park on park land, then they cant stop you from transporting or posessing on that public throughway while transiting the park.

but stopping and using the park they probably can, because thats not "public" owned like a motorway.

just pointing out that legal terms actually mean something in specific contexts, and it might be worth it to have folks chip in a few bucks just to talk to someone about it

[Statkowski]

Public parks is public parks is public parks. They are not private property.

Rules governing the use of such are enacted by county/township/borough ordinances.

State law says that counties/townships/boroughs CAN NOT enact ANY ordinances governing the carrying of firearms.

If such were otherwise, you'd see a mass of ordinances all over the place stating that this municipal building was off limits, or this particular bicycle path was off limits, etc. To avoid any such patchwork of garbage, the state legislature said "No!"

Concerning colleges and universities that are part of the State Higher Education System (i.e., state schools), although such institutions may create codes of conduct for their students and employees, they do not have the lawful authority to enact ordinances (i.e., laws) that apply to the public at large. Visitors to such institutions can indeed carry firearms, concealed or otherwise, and all the school authorities (or campus police force) can do is ask you to leave. Students and employees, however, are bound by their individual contracts with the schools, and such contracts stipulate no firearms.

[ChamberedRound]

Originally Posted by Statkowski

Public parks is public parks is public parks. They are not private property.

Thank you, this was what I was going to say. Public land cannot be claimed as "private property" by a municipality. Public land is owned by the people, and the municipality only has the right to administer it, as that right has been given them by the people. However, this administration must adhere to the law, which doesn't seem to be the case here.

[FRISteve]

Originally Posted by billamj

Unfortunately I'm not so sure of that Frenchy. State colleges and universities are paid for with tax dollars and they are able to ban firearms using the private property laws. Thats why I said it will be interesting to find out how this turns out.

Are you suggesting that it is illegal to carry on campus at (say) PSU?

[Statkowski]

Penn State IS NOT a state school - it is a private college. It has special dispensations afforded it from the state, but it is not part of the State Higher Education System.

Nowhere has it been suggested that it was illegal to carry on a college campus, be it a state school or otherwise (although it was suggested that a State School might be able to enact "something" applicable to the general public).

If you're neither a student nor an employee (or faculty [who doesn't necessarily view themselves as "employees"]), then you, as a member of the general public, can indeed carry until asked to leave. Should some over-zealous campus cop decide to do something more restraining than just asking you to leave, then that indeed would make for a nice lawsuit (illegal arrest, abuse of office [otherwise known as official oppression], etc.).

[FRISteve]

Originally Posted by Statkowski

Nowhere has it been suggested that it was illegal to carry on a college campus, be it a state school or otherwise (although it was suggested that a State School might be able to enact "something" applicable to the general public).

I was asking billamj, who said that it was illegal.

[exceltoexcel]

The park does have a road that travels through it.

I don't think you need a lawyer to figure out that this statue says they can't pass a law prohibiting possession of firearms, period.

If they pass a law then that law applies publicly not privately.

The law is a criminal offense punishable by a $600 fine of 6 months in jail.

Therefore it is very straight forward that it is illegal, while one might try to argue around it, and might successfully misuse the law, the intent and wording of the law is very clear.

For the most part, they can't create laws regarding firearms.