Possible UFA violation in Lycoming County

[s.vermeire]

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.

My wife and I are having a party at Indian Park in Montoursville. The park is administrated and appears to be owned by the borough. We just got the rules for the "borough park and recreation areas" which are printed on Borough of Montoursville letterhead. One rule states: "Hunting, shooting, trapping or carrying of firearms, air rifles, bows and arrows, slings, slingshots, fireworks, and any other weapon shall be prohibited." I have several issues with this rule: hunting, trapping, carrying of firearms, and bows and arrows just for starters.

As far as I know only the Game Commission can regulate hunting activities but we won't go there. I want to know if the rule stating that carrying of firearms is prohibited is a violation of the UFA section at the beginning of this post. I plan on writing to the borough council and making them aware of this if it is. I am going to wait until after our party this summer or my wife will be upset if something would happen that we can't use the pavilion we want to.

I am also asking so that I know if I can legally carry while we are having the party. I obviously will CC so as to not cause a commotion, but would still like to have my firearm with me.

I think the law is plainly written and that I understand it correctly, but just wanted to get some other's insight on the matter. I would love to hear from some of our layers or other legal experts on the matter. I thank you in advance.

[gnbrotz]

Yes. This rule violates preemption and is unenforceable. Key words to emphasize:

"in any manner"

[God's Country]

I'm sure this is a common issue in many municipalities. I would just plain ignore because it cannot be enforced.

[HiredGoon]

Something I thought about here.

If the park says no guns and you are found carrying and refuse to leave, they cannot charge you with trespassing (or anything else)? Like a retail establishment could that has a posted NO GUNS sign and you refuse to leave?

[gnbrotz]

Interesting question. I've been looking around for references to "trespassing on public property", and quite frankly, what I've found doesn't thrill me. More than likely, you would end up challenging the issue in court.

I hope I'm way off on this, and would love to hear some PA specific info from the attorneys here.

[s.vermeire]

The first couple posts are about what I figured I'd get, and I thank you. Now we are getting into the meat of this issue a little bit more. Some follow-up questions I was going to ask were along the lines of the reference to criminal trespassing.

Say I carry, which I will, and a cop patrols and happens to see it. (Not likely as I will probably be pocket carrying my 2" 357.) What recourse does he have to enforce the rule? Does he just tell me that I cannot have it and must put it in my vehicle? Or is this rule enforceable with a citation or summons of some sort. I'm not sure how a municipality of this size enforces their laws (rules). If he does tell me I can't have it and I do nothing then what? Do I get hauled off for 'disobeying a (un)lawful order'?

I know the rule will not stand under scrutiny of a court, but would rather not have to take things that route if I can avoid it; certainly not with me as a defendant. I wouldn't mind initiating some sort of case against the borough if they do not change their rules upon gaining the knowledge that they are breaking the law.

In a way I see this as a possible opportunity to set some precedent concerning the happenings in Philadelphia this past week. I realize that someone has to challenge the new legislation in the city, but it might be nice to have a stepping stone like this to start off with.

To the comment about 'ignoring it': I assume that you mean carry anyways. Or are you saying I shouldn't bother with writing my letter of concern to the borough council either? (I don't think that is what you wanted to say but it segues into my next rant.)

I'll address the answer even before I get it; take it for what it's worth. If we continue to ignore these sorts of rules we make it that much easier for our preemption to be dismantled. If it would ever come up in the legislature to modify the UFA in this manner it could be stated that X-hundred municipalities have regulations on firearms and they have not been repealed so it must make sense for the state to allow municipalities to have such laws. So I encourage all of you to check your local area for similar violations and make them known to the governing body. I didn't start this thread with the intention of sparking a grass-roots movement, but maybe this is a good outcome. Let us know what you find here.

Oh, and be sure to chime in on my original or follow-up questions as well. Thanks.

[Zef_66]

I found this funny because a couple years ago I helped the local cub scouts do a summer day camp there. I ran the BB gun range and archery range.

Anyway, my view is the UFA is the only thing I worry about. I don't worry about CC in businesses, parks, anywhere except where the UFA forbids me.

But, if I am found to be carrying by anyone with the appropiate power (manager, park official, LEO, etc), and asked to leave, I will. I don't want to start a firefight and be arrested for something. But... I will surely gather as much information about the situtation (names, dates, places, etc) and follow up with letters and phone calls regarding this.

My reasoning is that there are many municipalities that are probably in violation of this. Most use a canned set of rules written by a lawyer that has no idea of gun laws in PA, and probably doesn't care. To try and correct all these errors just in Lycoming country would be a huge burden. So I continue with what I do everyday. If asked to leave because of my firearm, I will. But will follow up at the very least with letters. And depending on how the situation transpired, legal action.

[TaePo]

On a legal grammatical point...is there a difference between shall be prohibited and is prohibited?

It seems shall indicates should as in we would prefer to be able to legally prohibit you but we cannot, so we ask that you do not do it.

(Or, it is currently not prohibited yet, but we are working on it!)

It always strikes me odd.

[sgser]

One rule states: "Hunting, shooting, trapping or carrying of firearms, air rifles, bows and arrows, slings, slingshots, fireworks, and any other weapon shall be prohibited."

While we're playing with semantics, (See above with the "shall" refernce) seems to me that the "and" suggests that you can carry your sidearm as long as you don't carry the other so called weapons. That is, only your firearm AND none of the others.

Language is funny. A sign that says NO SMOKING ALLOWED suggests that you may smoke if you choose to and that if you don't want to, you are allowed not to smoke.

[Zef_66]

As for the clause, the "any other weapons" has me thinking about my pocket knife. That can be used as a weapon. Is that allowded in the park? It is less than 3" long, folding. But still someone could think it as a weapon.

So again, my stance is to just do what you always do....