We have been addressing a preemption violation in Hazle Township, PA. You can find more comprehensive info about the situation here:
http://www.pafoa.org/forum/concealed...rleigh-pa.html (Preemption violation: Hazle TWP park, (Hazleton/Harleigh, PA))
http://www.pafoa.org/forum/concealed...-9-8-08-a.html (ROLL CALL - Hazle Twp. Supervisor's meeting - 9/8/08)
I think this post makes the current situation pretty clear:
Quote:
The supervisors seemed completely disinterested in what we had to say. One challenged my statement that I was "unable" to rent the facility, and asked if I had tried. I told him I did not because the rental agreement required me to agree to the rules, and I would not agree to come without my firearm. He said "the rules are the rules" and that didn't prevent me from renting the pavilion. I then asked if I should simply agree to the rules, then go ahead and bring my firearm anyway. This was not acceptable. He basically said it was my choice, and not their problem if I refused to abide by their rules and would not leave my firearm behind.
The Solicitor was not there, but his son was 'pinch hitting'. He took personal offense from my "sloppy interpretation" comment. Apparently he was the one who came up with it, and fed it to his father for presentation at the last meeting. He then proceeded to give me a mini-quiz on some of the case law. I think he was expecting me to not know them - he was wrong.
On tonight's news report they claim to be "still investigating" and say they don't want to rush into anything. However, last night they made it very clear that there would be no agreement on this issue. In fact, in the last four weeks of their supposed "continuing to look into it", they have been either unable or unwilling to even disclose the exact origins of the rule, and whether or not it is actually backed by an ordinance.
After the meeting, I asked the solicitor what would happen if I proceeded directly to the park. He just shrugged his shoulders. I then asked how someone who was not involved in this debate and just happened by the park would be aware of this rule, since it was not posted anywhere at the park. Again, he just shrugged his shoulders.
I believe it is very clear that they will continue to drag this out in an attempt to get us to go away. They have proven that "continuing to look into it" = NOTHING. Rich and I intend to immediately begin collecting funds so that we can challenge the township in court. We strongly believe that our position is correct, and believe that they are pushing to this extent with the belief that we will not follow through.
|
I doubt they will be the last. If we simply walk away, then starting the process in the first place is pointless. Again, donations can be made to me, on behalf of PA Open Carry.
Since we are raising funds for two different 'causes', please be sure to specify when you donate.
One fund is for individuals who we believe were unjustifiably charged/revoked/denied/etc., and the other is for legal action against municipalities who refuse to recognize preemption (but only after first attempting to correct the issue by bringing it to their attention in a more gentle manner). Additionally, there is the possibility that one fund may be collecting for multiple individuals or cases at the same time.
If you wish to make a single donation, and split between multiple situations, that's fine, just let us know how you'd like the money divided. Any leftover monies in these funds will be held for future incidents of similar nature. Funds will not be swapped from one cause to the other. Funds that are unspecified may be used for either fund at the discretion of Rich and Greg.
PayPal: gnbrotz AT embarqmail DOT com
Mail donations to:
Greg Rotz
1508 Guilford Station Rd.
Chambersburg, PA 17202
As stated before, an accounting of all monies collected and disbursed will be provided to any donor (absent personal information).
Funds collected so far: $279.38 (last updated 9/23/08)