Limerick Township Violates Preemption!?

[GunLawyer001]

You need to understand that there's a difference between "policy" arguments and "legal" arguments; also, that Ohio isn't Pennsylvania.

"Policy" arguments (where you and I agree) are good for getting laws passed. I think that citizens are generally safer wherever the bad guys are unsure who is armed. That's why England, with effectively universal civilian disrmament, has 9 times the home invasion rate of the USA, because nearly all homes are unarmed. More guns in the hands of the good guys in more places means fewer victims.

"Legal" arguments are generally attempts to show that the facts in the current case are more like the facts in cases that came out the way we like them, than they are like the facts in cases that we didn't like. The cases have to be "controlling" cases, meaning that they have to be in the same jurisdiction, from a higher court (or the same court), under identical statutes. Only where there's no controlling authority to we look to other non-controlling "persuasive" authorities like other states, law review articles, and other scholarly sources.

The question of what Limerick Township can do with property that it owns or controls is determined by the PA Constitution, the PA Home Rule Charter, the preemption under the PA UFA, and PA case law on the rights of property owners & property managers in general.

The fact that some unnamed people in Ohio believe that Ohio municipalities, under Ohio constitutional provisions and Ohio home rule statutes and Ohio firearms preemption and Ohio real estate law, are barred from passing laws that infringe firearm rights, is perhaps useful as a "policy" argument, but it has little if any bearing on the legal prerogatives of a municipal landowner in PA.

[exceltoexcel]

No doubt, we agree on the points you made above.

[ChamberedRound]

Hey guys,

Not sure what's going on WRT Excel's conversations with the Limerick town council, and I know this thread has been sleeping for awhile. However, as an FYI I wanted to communicate a personal experience. And, now, the obligatory...

DISCLAIMER: Take this FWIW, I'm just relating a personal experience. Make sure to check for yourselves on the legality of carrying before you carry anywhere.

My wife and I took the kids to Manderach Park yesterday. For those unfamiliar, Manderach is a park with a few fields, a picnic area, a pavilion or two, and a large playground. When we got there, I noticed a sign near the playground which clearly outlined the park rules, and these rules did NOT specifically mention the prohibition of firearms. This was my first time at the park, so I have no prior experience with the park or it's rules, but as of yesterday I didn't see anything posted which prohibited carry.

Just thought this might be interesting for those who have been following what's going on with Limerick's ordinance against the carrying of firearms in municipal parks, as my observation seems to be in contradiction with said ordinance.

[exceltoexcel]

UPDATE

I saw this letter from Philip Van Cleave and am going to use/modify it for the limerick problem!

...

Dear Mayor Eastham,
>>>
>>>I am the president of a large gun-rights organization in Virginia.
>>>
>>>It has been brought to my attention that Front Royal has two invalid
>> >ordinances:
>>>
>>>167-1 prohibits people who have a valid concealed handgun permit from
>>>carrying concealed in the Town and
>>>
>>>167-5 that and bans carry of firearms in parks and recreation areas
>>>belonging or used by the Town
>>>
>>>Both ordinances have been invalid since July 1, 2004 as Virginia has
>>>had full statewide preemption laws in place since then. The
>>>preemption code section is 15.2-915 and reads:
>>>
>>>15.2-915. Control of firearms; applicability to authorities and local
>>>governmental agencies.
>>>
>>>A. No locality shall adopt or enforce any ordinance, resolution or
>>>motion, as permitted by § 15.2-1425, and no agent of such locality
>>>shall take any administrative action, governing the purchase,
>>>possession, transfer, ownership, carrying, storage or transporting of
>>>firearms, ammunition, or components or combination thereof other than
>>>those expressly authorized by statute. For purposes of this section,
>>>a statute that does not refer to firearms, ammunition, or components
>>>or combination thereof, shall not be construed to provide express
> >>authorization.
>>>
>>>Nothing in this section shall prohibit a locality from adopting
>>>workplace rules relating to terms and conditions of employment of the
>>>workforce. Nothing in this section shall prohibit a law-enforcement
>>>officer, as defined in § 9.1-101 from acting within the scope of his
>>>duties.
>>>
>>>The provisions of this section applicable to a locality shall also
>>>apply to any authority or to a local governmental entity, including a
>>>department or agency, but not including any local or regional jail or
>>>juvenile detention facility.
>>>
>>>B. Any local ordinance, resolution or motion adopted prior to the
>>>effective date of this act governing the purchase, possession,
>>>transfer, ownership, carrying or transporting of firearms,
>>>ammunition, or components or combination thereof, other than those
>>>expressly authorized by statute, is invalid.
>>>
>>>Front Royal needs to make its ordinances comply with Virginia law.
>>>To do this 167-1 needs to be updated to reflect Virginia's current
>>>concealed weapons exemptions, including anyone who has a concealed
>>>handgun permit recognized by the Commonwealth of Virginia. 167-5
>>>needs to be modified to remove the words, "pistol, rifle, shotgun"
>>>from the ordinance.
>>>
>>>Your prompt attention to this matter is appreciated. If you could
>>>let me know when Town Council is taking up this matter, I and many of
>>>our members from the Front Royal area, would like to attend. My
>>>phone, fax and email are below.
>>>
>>>On a final note, I was shocked to have the Town Attorney, Mr.
>>>Robinett, tell me that he had no intention of bringing this matter up
>>>to the Town Council on his own! I am happy to bring it up, but
>>>surely the Town Council would want to know about ordinances that
>>>could get the Town into legal problems involving false arrests based
>>>on ordinances that do not comply with Virginia law!
>>>
>>>Sincerely,
>>>
>>>Philip Van Cleave
>>>President, VCDL



Here are my conversations about this with the president of the VCDL


-----Original Message-----
From: Philip Van Cleave [mailtohilip@virginiasystems.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 3:25 PM
To: Ted Noga
Subject: RE: VA-ALERT: Reminder: VCDL meeting in Richmond tomorrow!

Looks like you can kick their rear ends with that! One option is to
put them on notice, contact the press and have the press at the
meeting. Start by saying that the town is in violation of state law
and you want to see their regulations fixed...

At 1:52 PM -0400 4/26/07, Ted Noga wrote:
>The town is Limerick, Pennsylvania. I live right next door to the
>meeting hall, which makes it easy for me to address this issue.
>
>We have a similar pre-emption law.
>
>§ 6120. Limitation on the regulation of firearms and ammunition.
>(a) General rule.--No county, municipality or township may in any
>manner regulate the lawful ownership, possession, transfer or
>transportation of firearms, ammunition or ammunition components when
>carried or transported for purposes not prohibited by the laws of
>this Commonwealth.
>
>(a.1) No right of action.--
>
>No political subdivision may bring or maintain an action at law or
>in equity against any firearms or ammunition manufacturer, trade
>association or dealer for damages, abatement, injunctive relief or
>any other relief or remedy resulting from or relating to either the
>lawful design or manufacture of firearms or ammunition or the lawful
>marketing or sale of firearms or ammunition to the public.
>Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to prohibit a
>political subdivision from bringing or maintaining an action against
>a firearms or ammunition manufacturer or dealer for breach of
>contract or warranty as to firearms or ammunition purchased by the
>political subdivision.
>
>(b) Definitions.--As used in this section, the following words and
>phrases shall have the meanings given to them in this subsection:
>
>"Dealer."
>The term shall include any person engaged in the business of selling
>at wholesale or retail a firearm or ammunition.
>"Firearms."
>This term shall have the meaning given to it in section 5515
>(relating to prohibiting of paramilitary training) but shall not
>include air rifles as that term is defined in section 6304 (relating
>to sale and use of air rifles).
>"Political subdivision."
>The term shall include any home rule charter municipality, county,
>city, borough, incorporated town, township or school district.
>
>
>However, the township has banned possession of firearms with the
>township park. The argument is that the township park
>is the towns private property and that they in turn have private
>owner property rights, restricting peoples actions while in the park.
>
>On a related note, I'm very impressed with the VCDL efforts, these
>efforts in turn have, without a doubt, inspired not only myself but
>many others to become more politically involved in protecting our
>rights.
>
>Thank you for your efforts!
>
>Ted John Noga
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Philip Van Cleave [mailtohilip@virginiasystems.com]
>Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 1:18 PM
>To: Ted Noga
>Subject: Re: VA-ALERT: Reminder: VCDL meeting in Richmond tomorrow!
>
>What town is this?
>
>At 12:18 PM -0400 4/26/07, Ted Noga wrote:
> >Same type of issue, they have a law forbiding firearms in the town
> >park. This is aganst the premption law. We've brought it up at a
>>meeting and pretty much ignored. The argument is that its the towns
>>private property rights to ban firearms even though "no rule" shall
>>be passed.
>>-Ted Noga
>>
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: Philip Van Cleave <philip@virginiasystems.com>
>>To: Ted Noga
>>Sent: Thu Apr 26 12:15:34 2007
>>Subject: RE: VA-ALERT: Reminder: VCDL meeting in Richmond tomorrow!
>>
>>Sure. Are you talking to your reps on this issue or a different one?
>>
>>At 11:16 AM -0400 4/26/07, Ted Noga wrote:
>>>I just wanted to let you know that I'll be using your letter to
>>>front royal's mayor as inspiration for one to my own local
>>>representatives.
>>>
>>>Thank you,
>>>Ted John Noga

[nlcrsn]

Any thing new to update? Was at a baseball game for my sons liitle league, the park we went to also had sign prohibiting firearrms. I am just getting info together to bring to their attention.

[Statkowski]

In addition to the preceding, there's another big fish to fry - Pittsburgh International Airport.

So-called federal law prohibits carry in secured areas of the airport. Allegheny County Police, the airport's operating authority, and Allegheny County all state that carrying anywhere else, even if you've got an LTCF, will get you busted.

• Allegheny County Police claim they're working for the airport's operating authority and are "only following orders."
• The airport's operating authority cites the county ordinance creating the airport's operating authority as their mandate to restrict firearms (the county ordinance predates the Uniform Firearms Act).
• The county commissioners claim it's the airport authority that's doing the restricting, even though the county's ordinance is the one cited, and the county does the appointing of the airport authority's management.

Yes, taking care of the small fish (Limerick Township) is important, but we mustn't forget the big fish, too.

[Falcon118]

BUMP!! Just wanted to check and see if there were any other current updates as this issue is very important to me as well

[Steve in PA]

Originally Posted by Statkowski

In addition to the preceding, there's another big fish to fry - Pittsburgh International Airport.

So-called federal law prohibits carry in secured areas of the airport. Allegheny County Police, the airport's operating authority, and Allegheny County all state that carrying anywhere else, even if you've got an LTCF, will get you busted.

• Allegheny County Police claim they're working for the airport's operating authority and are "only following orders."
• The airport's operating authority cites the county ordinance creating the airport's operating authority as their mandate to restrict firearms (the county ordinance predates the Uniform Firearms Act).
• The county commissioners claim it's the airport authority that's doing the restricting, even though the county's ordinance is the one cited, and the county does the appointing of the airport authority's management.

Yes, taking care of the small fish (Limerick Township) is important, but we mustn't forget the big fish, too.

1) There is no law against carrying in the unsecured area of an airport.

2) Doesn't matter what ordinance they have or when it was dated, the UFA is the laws of the land as far as carrying a firearm.

3) Sounds like everyone has their heads up their butts.

[sojourner]

Just got done reading this post. Saw the last post was a few days ago and wanted to request info. regarding this topic.

I'm in Forks Twp. (north of Easton, Lehigh Valley). At the twp. park and I saw the dreaded sign w/ no firearms.

How do I find out the laws my twp. has enacted without possibly raising the eyebrows of officials?

If I understand correctly, if it is posted, and I am found out, I could be hit with "criminal trespass, which is a summary offense." So, in the interim of this getting solved, what are the repercussions of criminal tresspass (if I agree to leave immediately)? Will a summary offense cause me to have problems re-newing my LTCF? Will it cause me grief in purchasing firearms? What range of $ fines could be levied against me?

I am not advocating breaking laws, I just want to know what the repercussions would have been.

Thanks from a new member and first time poster.

[Statkowski]

I'm in Forks Twp. (north of Easton, Lehigh Valley). At the twp. park and I saw the dreaded sign w/ no firearms.

How do I find out the laws my twp. has enacted without possibly raising the eyebrows of officials?

The Township Manager's email address is: rick@forkstownship.org

Ask for a copy of the town ordinance authorizing the posting of the "no firearms" sign at the township park. If you need a reason, just state you want to make sure you don't violate any township ordinance.

Why are you afraid of raising eyebrows?

All of your questions concerning "repercussions" would be spelled out in the township's ordinance. Concerning your LTCF, however, it would have no effect on it.

Once you receive a copy, post it on this site.

Suffice it to say, the township ordinance has no lawful authority under the Uniform Firearms Act. State law prohibits local municipalities from enacting such ordinances, and any such ordinances that were in existence when the UFA came into being were rendered null and void (which very well may be the case in Forks Township).