Limerick Township Violates Preemption!?

[exceltoexcel]

Originally Posted by GunLawyer001

What does "regulate" mean? Can you issue "regulations" regarding guests in your home, or are those terms and conditions something else?

It wasn't a foregone conclusion what would happen to the PSP "record of sale database", when the law is: "Notwithstanding any section of this chapter to the contrary, nothing in this chapter shall be construed to allow any government or law enforcement agency or any agent thereof to create, maintain or operate any registry of firearm ownership within this Commonwealth." The court found wiggle room in the word "registry". Good, solid lawyers expected otherwise.

You doubt that they can distinguish laws and ordinances of general applicability, from park policies with limited effect and no criminal sanctions?

The law isn't for the weak. There's complication in the simplest sentences and words.

A park isn't a home, you're in the vast minority of attorneys and quite frankly I find your stance appalling as a member of the judicial process. You're entitled to your opinion, which to this point has done nothing more than delay justice and made me second guess myself needlessly. However, it has done some good as I now am certain that I'm on solid ground. While I'm thankful for several of your views on this forum, for this delay I'm upset. I place the blame for the delay squarly on myself as I and only I control my reactions.

You now seem to sing a different tune once the rubber meets the road. Either way I now have committed myself to this fight. So I ask you this... Which side are you truly on? Are you with the cause or against it? Say you now so as to clarify your stance for the board.. Are you with us or against us? I have a lawyer not only in mind but financially but would you take up this case? Or is it that you would just prefer we all stay out of the parks? I give you a chance to clarify your position as a matter of respect.

[GunLawyer001]

Originally Posted by exceltoexcel

A park isn't a home, you're in the vast minority of attorneys and quite frankly I find your stance appalling as a member of the judicial process. You're entitled to your opinion, which to this point has done nothing more than delay justice and made me second guess myself needlessly. However, it has done some good as I now am certain that I'm on solid ground. While I'm thankful for several of your views on this forum, for this delay I'm upset. I place the blame for the delay squarly on myself as I and only I control my reactions.

You now seem to sing a different tune once the rubber meets the road. Either way I now have committed myself to this fight. So I ask you this... Which side are you truly on? Are you with the cause or against it? Say you now so as to clarify your stance for the board.. Are you with us or against us? I have a lawyer not only in mind but financially but would you take up this case? Or is it that you would just prefer we all stay out of the parks? I give you a chance to clarify your position as a matter of respect.

How very odd.

I wish you luck in your endeavor. Not sure how I've changed that "tune", I expect that the criminal ordinance will fail, the park rule will likely stand, and I give that assessment as an honest opinion, even with Heller intervening since 2006.

Perhaps you misunderstand the role of a lawyer. When I'm your advocate, I'll zealously argue your case to the opposing parties, to the courts, to the newspapers if it comes to that; and I'll emphasize the best points while trying to dismiss any contrary authority. But long before that, when we discuss the strengths and weaknesses in your proposed case, I would be a used car salesman with a JD if I tried to "sell" you that we had a case. Not my job, not even as a PA resident who likes to travel armed everywhere except court. My job is to tell the truth as I see it, and the truth is that this is NOT a slam-dunk case of preemption violation, it could go either way, and probably against us on the park policy issue. Probably for us on the criminal ordinance.

Few plaintiffs (or willing defendants, in this case) enter into a case expecting to lose. About half of them are wrong, and so are their lawyers, if they said they had a guaranteed winner. In this case, I hope that the courts see it your way, that would be terrific.

I don't think my reputation here hangs on the outcome of a case that cuts new ground, before a court with human judges who rule based on personal prejudices tempered by the statutes and cases. I've covered a lot of ground, most of it not in reliance on predicting future rulings. I've always said that every case is a crapshoot, that's why most cases settle.

Honestly, good luck, a favorable ruling would have broad repercussions.

[exceltoexcel]

Originally Posted by GunLawyer001

How very odd.

I wish you luck in your endeavor. Not sure how I've changed that "tune", I expect that the criminal ordinance will fail, the park rule will likely stand, and I give that assessment as an honest opinion, even with Heller intervening since 2006.

Perhaps you misunderstand the role of a lawyer. When I'm your advocate, I'll zealously argue your case to the opposing parties, to the courts, to the newspapers if it comes to that; and I'll emphasize the best points while trying to dismiss any contrary authority. But long before that, when we discuss the strengths and weaknesses in your proposed case, I would be a used car salesman with a JD if I tried to "sell" you that we had a case. Not my job, not even as a PA resident who likes to travel armed everywhere except court. My job is to tell the truth as I see it, and the truth is that this is NOT a slam-dunk case of preemption violation, it could go either way, and probably against us on the park policy issue. Probably for us on the criminal ordinance.

Few plaintiffs (or willing defendants, in this case) enter into a case expecting to lose. About half of them are wrong, and so are their lawyers, if they said they had a guaranteed winner. In this case, I hope that the courts see it your way, that would be terrific.

I don't think my reputation here hangs on the outcome of a case that cuts new ground, before a court with human judges who rule based on personal prejudices tempered by the statutes and cases. I've covered a lot of ground, most of it not in reliance on predicting future rulings. I've always said that every case is a crapshoot, that's why most cases settle.

Honestly, good luck, a favorable ruling would have broad repercussions.

Thanks, I guess? The official attitude is a max 60% loss for magistrate a 99% win in appeal a 100% win for the big court and civil suit, that is (SCOPA) when money would turn to donations for sure..

[exceltoexcel]

if the criminal ordinence fails I win. So sence you're sure it will I guess it ain't no crap shoot

[Yellowfin]

I'm sure there's been lots of limericks about Limerick, but why not one more?

There once was a town in PA
That said no guns in places we say
Instead of being screwed
The gun owners then sued
Saying "Obey the 2nd or pay!"

[exceltoexcel]

Originally Posted by Yellowfin

I'm sure there's been lots of limericks about Limerick, but why not one more?

There once was a town in PA
That said no guns in places we say
Instead of being screwed
The gun owners then sued
Saying "Obey the 2nd or pay!"

Nice! An artist!

[Statkowski]

Just my interpretation, but I believe GunLawyer001 is playing devil's advocate, pointing out the worse-case scenario. He's not playing the bad guy - he's just pointing out that in the strange world of jurisprudence black isn't always black, white isn't always white and the grey inbetween the two could actually be something else altogether.

[GunLawyer001]

Originally Posted by Statkowski

Just my interpretation, but I believe GunLawyer001 is playing devil's advocate, pointing out the worse-case scenario. He's not playing the bad guy - he's just pointing out that in the strange world of jurisprudence black isn't always black, white isn't always white and the grey inbetween the two could actually be something else altogether.

It's instructive to note how many US Supreme Court cases are decided 5-4. That means that you could have 4 Supreme Court Justices tell you that you're right, and you'll still be "wrong", because the Court happened to rule against you. Heller was a 5-4 case. Four of the Justices believe that "the People" doesn't mean "the People", but only when it's used in the 2nd Amendment. In the 1st, 4th, 9th, in the Preamble, it refers to us individuals, "the People".

The PA Preemption clause is about as long as the 2nd Amendment. Litigation over it won't be a slam-dunk for either side. My professional evaluation of the chances of beating the criminal statute (which is feasible), and the chances off striking down the park policy (much less so), has nothing at all to do with who I'm rooting for.

It's counterproductive to insist on political correctness and to whine about contrary views; that's how they sold Global Warming (oops, "Climate Change"). If you try to stifle dissent with ad hominem attacks, you end up with decisions based on nonsense.

[Rundownfid]

ExceltoExcel;

Best wishes in your efforts. When it comes, if it does, time to pony up some money to supprot your case please don't be bashful about asking for it here.

Rundownfid

[exceltoexcel]

Originally Posted by Rundownfid

ExceltoExcel;

Best wishes in your efforts. When it comes, if it does, time to pony up some money to supprot your case please don't be bashful about asking for it here.

Rundownfid

I literally saved a good sum of cash but if it gets nasty I'll be sure to ask for assistance. more importantly is a large show of support at the town meetings.