Civil Protection Ordinance

[knight0334]

After thinking about that some more while taking my shower, you might want to keep an edited version of that clause as a "feel good" compromise with those who would be inclined to vote against such a type of bill. It would also give LEO's another thing to throw at someone who completely violates order and peace with violent acts without taking from those who use a firearm lawfully.

Just my opinion.. trying help.. I'd love to see more communities enact Kennesaw GA type laws.

[ChamberedRound]

Originally Posted by knight0334

After thinking about that some more while taking my shower, you might want to keep an edited version of that clause as a "feel good" compromise with those who would be inclined to vote against such a type of bill. It would also give LEO's another thing to throw at someone who completely violates order and peace with violent acts without taking from those who use a firearm lawfully.

Just my opinion.. trying help.. I'd love to see more communities enact Kennesaw GA type laws.

The wording you proposed allows law enforcement to prosecute someone who is obviously causing trouble, yet completely protects hunters, target shooters at clubs and private ranges, and those who need to use a weapon in self defense.

My only concerns with leaving this paragraph is the possibility the LEOs who aren't well versed in the details of this ordinance could attempt to cite or arrest people due to their misunderstanding of it.

[ScooterKrunch]

Just saw Fox 8 News (Johnstown), and they covered this some. This is my take, forgive me if some of my facts are slightly off. It caught me off guard.

It was very short but they did a wonderful job. They paraphrased the proposal and showed a clip of the meeting with Statkowski giving his reasons for it. They said it was shot down 5 to 1, but they also made it sound like there was some heated discussion at the meeting. They didn't go into too much detail though. They did interview some folks; one was a hunter who was against the idea, but didn't say why; another person made the comment that Cherry Tree was a quiet town and there hadn't been any problems for 20 years; and a gentleman who put it best by saying crime doesn't rest. One board member said it was shot down due to cost and liability among other things. Fox 8 also asked why a ordinance was even proposed, and showed a clip of a gentleman stating that the 2A gave us the right to bear arms, and that there were attacks on that right everyday. He even went into naming politicians trying to chip away at the 2A. Sounds like Fox8 News is pro 2A. Bravo!

[Heavyhaul]

Even if this law would have passed, it still fell under PA laws. If you are a common person, the best that you can do is let your wife and children collect you life insurance. If you ever shot an intruder in your home, it would cost you everthing you own to stay out of jail. If a "resonable person" would enter my home at 3 AM, and my Rottie bites them, I am responsible. Therefore, I can and will, be sued. Firearms will meet the same out come.

[ChamberedRound]

Originally Posted by Heavyhaul

Even if this law would have passed, it still fell under PA laws. If you are a common person, the best that you can do is let your wife and children collect you life insurance. If you ever shot an intruder in your home, it would cost you everthing you own to stay out of jail. If a "resonable person" would enter my home at 3 AM, and my Rottie bites them, I am responsible. Therefore, I can and will, be sued. Firearms will meet the same out come.

First, what's being proposed is not a law, it's an ordinance. Second, the wording didn't "mandate" anything, it "recommended". Nothing was obligatory, and there shouldn't be liability on the part of the town, with the exception of something going bad when a citizen tried to get training at the local PD.

And I don't know about you, but I'm not going to lay down and let someone take my life so that all my wife and kids are left with is some cash. If I have to defend myself in civil court I will. And I will win, because there is no such thing as a "reasonable" person entering anyone's home at 3AM.

On the liability issues, however, you're absolutely right. This is why in the upcoming session of the State Assembly we need to push our legislators to resurrect the Castle Doctrine bill that went stale. That bill protected homeowners from lawsuits for defending themselves, their families, and their property.

[IceFire]

Originally Posted by Heavyhaul

Even if this law would have passed, it still fell under PA laws. If you are a common person, the best that you can do is let your wife and children collect you life insurance. If you ever shot an intruder in your home, it would cost you everthing you own to stay out of jail. If a "resonable person" would enter my home at 3 AM, and my Rottie bites them, I am responsible. Therefore, I can and will, be sued. Firearms will meet the same out come.

If someone's coming into my home at 3 AM, that is NOT a reasonable person! At that hour, my doors are locked, and anyone entering is BREAKING IN, and I must therefore assume that they are there to do harm to me and/or my family. That being the case, the intruder WILL be facing BOTH me and my husband, and we will both be armed. (That is, if the dogs don't get to the intruder first.)

[ScooterKrunch]

There is no way in...well you know, that I am going to let some derelict walk over me and my family. I don't care what it takes to defend myself in civil court. I can't even imagine myself being submissive to someone entering my home, let alone if they're intending to do harm to us. It's ashame that not only are people afraid of the intruder, they're afraid to defend themselves because of the court proceedings that may follow. The Castle Doctrine definitely needs to be passed. Back to the Ordinance. I would hope a follow-up revision would be next. Don't back down now. I'm thinking of lobbying some of the locals for something like that around me. My first political action.

[knight0334]

Well, I commend Statkowski for trying. Maybe next time....

[LittleRedToyota]

Originally Posted by knight0334

Well, I commend Statkowski for trying. Maybe next time....

if nothing else, he got at least one pittsburgh news channel to air a story on guns that wasn't completely negative or about hunting (not that i have anything against stories about hunting).

imho, that alone made it all worthwhile.

[Statkowski]

If you don’t know by now, the recommendation was voted down 6-1 (I was the “1”). I do believe it was voted down just to get rid of the media circus feeding frenzy.

Even in defeat there is victory. I raised what I thought was a valid issue, my voice was heard statewide (at least), I certainly got people talking, and we even had local residents attending a Borough Council meeting for a change. Mission accomplished.

Of course, once the cameras were turned off our beloved Borough Council President tried to rip me a new one for bringing all this unwanted attention to our small town, but I deflected her blasts with dignity and no emotional response whatsoever. On the bright side, I cannot be kicked off council, and state law makes no provisions for a recall election.

Who knows? Maybe some other small town will attempt the same.

The media circus feeding frenzy was indeed something I don’t think I want to go through again. We had at least three television stations and three newspapers present, plus a few others, and I don't view any of the newspaper articles written as negative - mostly neutral in nature.

I did find it most interesting that our Borough Solicitor had virtually no knowledge whatsoever regarding Pennsylvania’s Uniform Firearms Act.

Thanks for your support. It made the entire roller coaster ride worthwhile.