Originally Posted by GunLawyer001
Gentlemen: This is my first posting on this site. I'm an attorney, I'm pro-gun, but I have to tell you that property owners have more rights on their property than members of the general public have on that property, even where the property owner is the government.
A private property owner can set almost any conditions for use of the property, as long as he doesn't trample on a protected class, and even then a truly private property owner can decline to invite blacks, women, the handicapped, whoever into his home.
Once you start renting it out or inviting the general public in, then you can't discriminate against one of the recognized protected classes. Gun owners are not in a protected class, at least not the way minorites, women, and the handicapped are protected.
For private property that's open to the public, there's case law that defines what can and can't be restricted. There's case law on quasi-public property like shopping malls; some courts have held that they are the modern "town squares", and must accomodate some free speech; there's also case law that holds that it's still private property, and the Bill of Rights doesn't apply. I'm unaware of any case law that holds that "quasi public" property can't prohibit gun possession as a condition of use, at least not in any State without a specific "right to carry on private property" statute.
Government entities that are acting in a private capacity have their own set of rules. If your local town collects your trash for a fee, or sells you electricity, they are acting as just another vendor. As property owners, even PUBLIC property owners, they are entitled to establish rules for the use of that property by the public. They can ban open fires, even where open fires are generally lawful. They can ban dogs, even where dogs are generally lawful. They can limit groups to 100 or 500 or whatever, they can require permits for large public assemblies.
Opening land for public use doesn't mean they must just open the gates and let you do whatever you wish. 200+ years of case law and statutes are clear on this.
PA pre-emption prevents your town from banning assault rifles everywhere within town limits, but it doesn't prevent them from imposing restrictions on how the public uses property that's open to the public, any more than pre-emption prevents you from sticking a sign on your home or business door that says "no guns allowed". Property owners have rights, and in fact are required to exercise control over what happens on their land.
Here's the way the law works: if Costco bans guns on their premises (which they do), but they don't post signs at the door, then all they can do is ask you to leave once they see that you have a gun. If you refuse to leave, then it's defiant trespass, a criminal offense. If they post a clearly-visible "no guns" sign at the door and you come in with a gun, then you are trespassing even before they confront you.
That's the law, it's the way it really works. Property owners have rights, and they sometimes trump your rights as a guest on their property.
The ONLY possibility for this Limerick issue is this: Governments can't step on your civil rights, even when acting in a private capacity. This isn't a pre-emption issue, it's a civil rights question. The PA Constitution protects your right to keep & bear arms, but there's not much case law on it, partly because they re-did the State Constitution back in the 1960's. If the courts hold that you have a recognized, individual civil right to carry a firearm everywhere, then the Limerick statute might be vulnerable. However, both State and Federal laws already limit where you can carry, by excluding courthouses & schools.
Limerick could just post "no guns" signs at the park entrance, but criminalizing it through a formally enacted statute is more clearly government action that might infringe State law; but since it only applies on park property, my bet would be that it would be upheld anyway.
|