Civil Protection Ordinance

[exceltoexcel]

Of course I would

[ChamberedRound]

Good catch excel.

I wouldn't vote for something like this unless such a provision or item was completely stricken from the language of the ordinance/bill/etc.

The problem is, for lack of a better term, it's a slippery slope. You ban discharge in the borough, but what happens in the future if the borough becomes incorporated into a larger municipality? What if other municipalities adopt similar ordinances using this one as a reference? All of a sudden, a person with 10 acres can't discharge a weapon on their private range because their land is within the borough or municipality. Or, gun clubs within these municipalities are no longer allowed to operate. Or, hunters can't hunt on public land because of this item.

The intent of such an ordinance is admirable, but line-items like this, IMHO, are a poison pill. Even worse, the ordinance can be touted by politicians to appear to support a pro-2A agenda, when in actuality it's a wolf in sheep's clothing.

[Statkowski]

As the one who proposed the ordinance, I'm inclined to delete subsection c in its entirety, for all the reasons previously cited, plus it might very well violate the state preemption stated in the Uniform Firearms Act.

From my point of view, consider it gone.

[exceltoexcel]

Its not to be cruel, and in my opinion, based on your posts, you didn't intend harm when you wrote it.

If you take it out (section c) you have my 100% support!

Thanks for even considering writing a piece of legislation like this!

It has honorable intentions sometimes things just slip by us that we didn't think about.

I hope you take this as nothing more than constructive criticism not as a cruel "thumping", that is/was not my intention!

Run with it without section C and the whole board will stand behind you, I'll be the second in line!

[Statkowski]

No offense taken. If it was a "thumping," it was well-deserved. Constructive criticism is always, always appreciated - that's how one separates the wheat from the chaff.

Will keep everyone informed of how things go at next borough council meeting.

I will say this, it did raise a few eyebrows when introduced.

Actually, out here in Rural America, all it's doing is stating the obvious - most homeowners have guns.

[doug]

I see this thread got picked up by the Pittsburgh Tribune Review twice, and the Indiana Gazette Online.

[SGTUSArmy]

And to think, up until about 7 minutes ago, I had no idea Indiana County existed. Now I know of a burough in said county. To think you are now famous. Will you remember us little people?

[knight0334]

As pointed out by others, the discharge clause is a big issue.

That proposed bill should read:

"The discharging of a firearm, except for the lawful purposes of, shall be prohibited and violation of ordinance.

(1) Lawful purposes shall include:
(a). Self-defense, defense of another, defense of property, in the performance of her or duties as a law enforcement officer, and in assistance to an officer while making an arrest or while making an arrest as a private individual as described under PA Law Title 18, Chapter 5, Subsections: 505, 506, 507, 508
(b). While target practicing and competitive shooting so long as there is a contained back stop to prevent the passing of a projectile from the range.
(c). While hunting in accordance to Pennsylvania State Game Laws and Game Commission Regulations.

(2). Lawful purposes shall automatically include any future PA State sanctioned justifiable use of Deadly Force when approved by the PA General Assembly and signed by the Governor.

(3). Penalties: {insert proper penalty}"

The way I've written it above shouldn't violate the state preemption or conflict with other state laws.

[Statkowski]

It's a lot easier to delete the offending subparagraph in its entirety.

Suggestion appreciated, however.

Upcoming borough council meeting ought to be interesting, to say the least.

[knight0334]

ok.. lol..

Thought I'd help.

Good luck with that proposal.