Limerick Township Violates Preemption!?

[ChamberedRound]

Originally Posted by Frenchy

Ill say it one more time, "For any legal reason" If you are open to the public, then you have to accept the public, be they a minority, a religious group, or gun owners, if they do nothing wrong, you can not just show them the door just because you dont "like" them... If they disturb the establishment, then you could ask them to leave.

I don't wish to hijack this thread, but I have to comment on this. Frenchy, I still disagree. A private property owner, regardless of whether he invites the public onto his property or not, has the right to remove anyone from their property for ANY reason. It might be discrimination, but they can be removed. They might get sued for discrimination in a civil court, but they will NOT get tried in a criminal court for asking someone to leave their property for ANY reason.

Think about it this way: You have people at your house for a party (you've invited the 'public' onto your property) and after the party, a guest refuses to leave. He sits outside in your yard, he's not causing trouble, but he's not leaving. By your logic, you would not be able to have him removed from your property, which we all know isn't true.

As far as "For any legal reason", that's irrelevant. If this were relevant, then an owner would not be allowed to ask a person to leave for carrying a weapon, which we all know isn't true. An owner can ask a CCW'er to leave, and if they don't leave, they can be arrested for trespassing. And the trespassing technically has nothing to do with carrying, it has to do with the person being on the owner's property when the owner doesn't want them there.

Originally Posted by Frenchy

By law, you are allowed to carry in a restaurant, bar or store in PA. Unless you are in a place that is specifically stated in the law you may not carry, you can not be thrown out with out just cause, it would fall under discrimination.

Again Frenchy, discrimination is a civil issue, not a criminal one. Yes, you can make the owner's life hell, and get some money in damages by suing them, but they didn't break the law.

Originally Posted by Frenchy

You might throw a street bum or homeless person out with out being questioned but throw a respectable person out because they carry and it will hit the news fast. Look up how many carry permits there are in PA, then add a few visitors from other states that also carry here legally every day, and tell me all these people dont eat out or go in "public" places. If you throw one person out for "concealed" carry, you would have to search every one That could be a lot of people!
As for asking if you have a gun on you. Pa law says you do not have to say to a police officer you are concealing if you have the permit, what gives average joe the right to ask? Sure they can ask, but you can look them in the eye and ask them on what authority they ask this.

None of this matters, Frenchy. A property owner can ask you to leave because you looked at him funny.

Originally Posted by Frenchy

You can not sit in a public building with out cause for a long period of time because there are loitering laws that protect that, but as long as you are legal, not breaking any laws and in the building for a purpose, no one can "legally" throw you out.

These public buildings you describe, like Sam's, Wal-Mart, etc. are not public. They're buildings on PRIVATE PROPERTY. The company (or some company) owns the buildings, the parking lots, etc. and they can do what they want on them.

I wish you were right Frenchy, but if you were, we would be able to carry anywhere we wanted without anyone stopping us, which isn't necessarily the case.

[ChamberedRound]

Originally Posted by exceltoexcel

I'm confused, I'm not trying to undermine the law of preemption.

I'm fighting to uphold it!

Limerick township can't pass a law regarding firearms, period.

They did just that.

It's illegal, doesn't matter if they make a law that says you can throw someone out of your own home if they are carrying a gun, which is a state given right anyway.

Limerick still can't pass a law that says anything about gun possession.

Understood, and you're absolutely right: Limerick is violating preemption. The issue billamj, Frenchy, and I are discussing is admittedly off-topic.

[exceltoexcel]

Originally Posted by ChamberedRound

Understood, and you're absolutely right: Limerick is violating preemption. The issue billamj, Frenchy, and I are discussing is admittedly off-topic.

Frenchy quoted me so that's what made me confussed, please carry on.

[Frenchy]

Think about it this way: You have people at your house for a party (you've invited the 'public' onto your property) and after the party, a guest refuses to leave. He sits outside in your yard, he's not causing trouble, but he's not leaving. By your logic, you would not be able to have him removed from your property, which we all know isn't true

If i invite people to my home for a party. They are INVITED!!! it is not a public thing! Not just nay one can come in off the street, it is a private party.
ChamberedRound you have to find your self in the definition of public vs private. Having 5 friends over to watch Football on your Tv does not make your private home a public one. As for discrimination if a civil issue.. It is illegal in the US to discriminate against any people minorities or not. There for more then a civil issue, it is a criminal issue. You can have a party and "Chose" the people that are invited. People do it every day, I had my wedding in a private home, not every one was invited. It was a private party!

I give up! Man! I posted the actual laws, and you still argue them and give arguments I would expect from a total gun hater.
I cant believe people talk about the Sheple this, the Sheple that.. and then will not look at the law and accept it. Who are the real Seaple, the ones who are ignorent of their rights or the ones completely denies themselves of them? Having guns must really be a burden to you as you obviously cant stop any where to eat exept a drive through, you obviously cant drive through a state and stop to go to the washroom, you most definately can not stop to sleep in a public place, because you are allowing owners of public areas the power to make mini laws that govern their establishments.
When you stop on a highway rest area, and there is a food court there. There is a law in health that says the partons must have shoes, they must have a shirt, this is a health issue. But where it the law that says you can not carry in there? There is none, the poster is made this way, and the owners will argue there are laws governing this, but there is none governing the gun issue.
If at a rest stop you are asked to put a shirt or shoes on, and you ask the manager "on who's authority can you ask me to wear clothes?" He can reply on the Authority of the Health board that issues my licence to operate this eating area. But there is no "law" that says you may not have a gun there. People accept the law people propose to them as fact, just like the offices of the county of Limmerick are trying to make people believe they can not legally carry in a park. There is no "law" that makes it illegal, therefor it is Legal.
But you keep on your ways and give the public building owners the "right" the make mini laws and live by that, and call others who are worried about guns the sheeple... The worst Sheeple are the ones who OWN guns and are worried about where they can go. They are not only Sheeple, they are tied to the steak waiting for a wolf to come out and get them.

[ChamberedRound]

Frenchy,

You are completely missing my point. I am not arguing that carry is illegal, we all know it's perfectly legal, and legal in many different places. Quote all the laws you want, you're stating the obvious.

And, if I'm going somewhere and wish to carry (and it's legal) I will carry, regardless of where it is. I will not inform anyone I'm carrying. BUT, if a proprietor/owner/manager asks me to leave FOR ANY REASON, not just carrying, ANY REASON, I must leave. This point has NOTHING to do with carry. It doesn't matter whether it's a home, a store, a mall, etc. Our collective right to carry does NOT trump a property owner's rights.

My wish is that there be a compromise on this issue, but as it stands today that is NOT the case. I'm also not the only one who's said it, as this has been discussed in other threads. Use the search and look at some other posts, most notably by Dan, and see how they weigh in.

Please don't call me igornant, a sheeple, or a gun hater because I don't agree with your argument.

I'm done discussing this, it's been beaten to death. It's also a hijack and off-topic from the more important issue discussed in this thread.

[exceltoexcel]

Frenchy, I think you're thinking about this way too much.

Without a doubt I could argue both sides of this issue.

I did that with Dan Thursday.

Private land rights indicate that yes you can discriminate on any basis however when open to the public the line gets blurry.

You can't throw someone out because they are a minority however you can for any other non-protected reason. They are wearing a red hat, they aren't wearing a tie.

Should you be able to throw someone out for exercising 2a rights? I'm not sure one way or the other.

Most certainly I believe you should be able to throw someone out of you own private residence for any reason you could think of.

However, if you're open to the public I don't think you should be able to throw people out for exercising there explicit lawful rights, rights guaranteed by the state or federal government.

However again, I think you should be able to fire anyone for any other reason other than exercising their rights.

It is a wash, niether you nor CR are enemies here, this is a debate not an argument.

Both of you are two of the best posters here and we all need to understand that someone taking a different side on a debate is not/ does not mean that we all don't stand for the same basic concepts.

These are minor refinements of positions on the issues not the be all and end all of people personal opinions and beliefs.

[billamj]

Originally Posted by exceltoexcel

Both of you are two of the best posters here and we all need to understand that someone taking a different side on a debate is not/ does not mean that we all don't stand for the same basic concepts.

These are minor refinements of positions on the issues not the be all and end all of people personal opinions and beliefs.

+1 Excellent post! Perfectly phrased and much clearer than anything that I could have tried.

[exceltoexcel]

Thank you my good man!

[GunLawyer001]

Gentlemen: This is my first posting on this site. I'm an attorney, I'm pro-gun, but I have to tell you that property owners have more rights on their property than members of the general public have on that property, even where the property owner is the government.

A private property owner can set almost any conditions for use of the property, as long as he doesn't trample on a protected class, and even then a truly private property owner can decline to invite blacks, women, the handicapped, whoever into his home.

Once you start renting it out or inviting the general public in, then you can't discriminate against one of the recognized protected classes. Gun owners are not in a protected class, at least not the way minorites, women, and the handicapped are protected.

For private property that's open to the public, there's case law that defines what can and can't be restricted. There's case law on quasi-public property like shopping malls; some courts have held that they are the modern "town squares", and must accomodate some free speech; there's also case law that holds that it's still private property, and the Bill of Rights doesn't apply. I'm unaware of any case law that holds that "quasi public" property can't prohibit gun possession as a condition of use, at least not in any State without a specific "right to carry on private property" statute.

Government entities that are acting in a private capacity have their own set of rules. If your local town collects your trash for a fee, or sells you electricity, they are acting as just another vendor. As property owners, even PUBLIC property owners, they are entitled to establish rules for the use of that property by the public. They can ban open fires, even where open fires are generally lawful. They can ban dogs, even where dogs are generally lawful. They can limit groups to 100 or 500 or whatever, they can require permits for large public assemblies.

Opening land for public use doesn't mean they must just open the gates and let you do whatever you wish. 200+ years of case law and statutes are clear on this.

PA pre-emption prevents your town from banning assault rifles everywhere within town limits, but it doesn't prevent them from imposing restrictions on how the public uses property that's open to the public, any more than pre-emption prevents you from sticking a sign on your home or business door that says "no guns allowed". Property owners have rights, and in fact are required to exercise control over what happens on their land.

Here's the way the law works: if Costco bans guns on their premises (which they do), but they don't post signs at the door, then all they can do is ask you to leave once they see that you have a gun. If you refuse to leave, then it's defiant trespass, a criminal offense. If they post a clearly-visible "no guns" sign at the door and you come in with a gun, then you are trespassing even before they confront you.

That's the law, it's the way it really works. Property owners have rights, and they sometimes trump your rights as a guest on their property.

The ONLY possibility for this Limerick issue is this: Governments can't step on your civil rights, even when acting in a private capacity. This isn't a pre-emption issue, it's a civil rights question. The PA Constitution protects your right to keep & bear arms, but there's not much case law on it, partly because they re-did the State Constitution back in the 1960's. If the courts hold that you have a recognized, individual civil right to carry a firearm everywhere, then the Limerick statute might be vulnerable. However, both State and Federal laws already limit where you can carry, by excluding courthouses & schools.

Limerick could just post "no guns" signs at the park entrance, but criminalizing it through a formally enacted statute is more clearly government action that might infringe State law; but since it only applies on park property, my bet would be that it would be upheld anyway.

[billamj]

Welcome to the group GunLawyer001. I hope that we don't push you too much with our various and sundry questions.