Civil Protection Ordinance

[exceltoexcel]

Dispite my opinons I give you a full A+, I'm glad you did this.

[danp]

Mr Statkowski,
What you did was great, your proposed ordinance was well written and in my opinion very reasonable. You took a stand, did what you thought was right and you should be commended for it. If we had more people like you sitting in council positions we wouldn't have many of the silly laws like the ones in Limerick and many other places.

On another note, many of the articles written about your proposed ordinance mentioned that you posted it on our website. You indirectly got the PAFOA quite a bit of mainstream exposure!

All in all the PAFOA salutes you.

[ScooterKrunch]

Mr Statkowski I commend you. Like I said I am in no way political but ever since PA passed a version of the Equine Liability Law I find myself getting more involved everyday. I feel the Castle Doctrine is the equivalent of the ELL, and a relentless pursuit to get it, or at least something resembling it passed is a must for our future. Once our "foot is in the door" it's all down hill from there.

[exceltoexcel]

Originally Posted by danp

Mr Statkowski,
What you did was great, your proposed ordinance was well written and in my opinion very reasonable. You took a stand, did what you thought was right and you should be commended for it. If we had more people like you sitting in council positions we wouldn't have many of the silly laws like the ones in Limerick and many other places.

On another note, many of the articles written about your proposed ordinance mentioned that you posted it on our website. You indirectly got the PAFOA quite a bit of mainstream exposure!

All in all the PAFOA salutes you.

Well written +1.

[ChamberedRound]

Originally Posted by 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.

I for one am glad you proposed this, and obviously others here agree. I understand why a small town would want to avoid media attention, but if nothing else it got people thinking. That some people, in government no less, didn't know about the PA UFA amazes me, and I'm glad that your proposal gave them an education.

In fact, the last point is very important: if municipal-level elected representatives aren't even aware of the UFA, then they don't even know their firearms prohibition proposals are breaking the law. The best way to fight illegal ordinances is to prevent them from being put on the books in the first place, and the UFA provides us the legal backing.

In any event, good work, Mr. Statkowski. I'd go so far as to continue proposing this ordinance. Now that the media frenzy is over, I doubt they'd come back if at some later date it was proposed again, and others on the board might vote differently if there's no camera in their face.

[Heavyhaul]

I do not profess to be fluent in law. Sometimes I don't do so good with English. I don't know the difference between a "law" and an "ordinance". I thought that one was state or federal and the other was local. So, I did use the wrong word. The least of my concerns is the liability of the town.
It was explained to me by two different lawyers that it would fall under the definition of "a resonable person" if another person would have been in that situation and the outcome would have been the same. And NO! I would not sit by and let something happen. I would deal with the outcome after the situation was ended. The fact is, by what I have been told, you do not have the right to use deadly force, even in your home, unless your life is in danger. The State does not consider someone entering your home to be a direct danger to your life. My understanding that your ability to protect your "property" has also been changed in the last year. If somebody out there knows that my facts are wrong, please correct me. I am all about learning.

[josh]

If you do not mind I am going to take this orginance to my next township meeting. Maybe I can get the supervisors interested.

[Statkowski]

Regarding the difference between a "law" and an "ordinance." for all intents and purposes there is none - a "law" is state level or higher, and an "ordinance" is county level or lower. Both do the same thing, require or prohibit an action with appropriate penalties for failing to comply.

Regarding submitting it to your township supervisors, I STRONGLY RECOMMEND that it be submitted as a "resolution" (a statement of official recommendation or opinion) rather than an "ordinance." Again, an ordinance requires a penalty for failing to obey such, and there is nothing to obey with a recommendation.

As for someone breaking into my house and threatening my life or the lives of my family, just by breaking into an occupied home the actor has accomplished that whether or not he actually threatens anyone. It is up to the state to prove that the home's residents were not in fear of their lives. Break into an occupied home and you risk getting shot. Period. End of discussion.

[exceltoexcel]

I thought that the government has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you committed the crime you are charged with and that the defendant has to prove with preponderance that they met the exception to that law.

[theshadow]

Originally Posted by exceltoexcel

I thought that the government has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you committed the crime you are charged with and that the defendant has to prove with preponderance that they met the exception to that law.

You're thinking of the 'Old" U.S. of A., before the activist Judges took over, and now even thinking somethings is proof positive you were going to commit a crime and neede to be stopped before you acted (guilty till proven innocent).