Municipalities in violation of §6120 (Preemption)

[US Militiaman]

Northampton County parks have a rule preventing 'weapons' with no definition given...

East Allen park signs specifically state 'No Firearms' on their signs and back it up with an ordinance number...

I am currently working to get both ordinances. Once I receive the ordinances and can quote their rules in my letter, a letter will be sent to the governing bodies.

[Evolution]

I got a response from the e-mail I sent out last week. Manheim Township is in the process of drafting an amendment to the original ordinance. We'll have to wait and see what happens. Below is a copy of the e-mail I received:

Mr. Heinaman I apologize for not getting to you sooner but I took some vacation time last week to recharge the batteries. I've asked the solicitor to draft an amendment to the original Ordinance. Once it is finalized it will be forwarded to the Commissioners to consider. I will have the Amendment by next week and it will be before the Commissioners at their meeting on August 25th.
If you have any questions please contact me.

Jim Martin

[gnbrotz]

Originally Posted by jcheinaman

I got a response from the e-mail I sent out last week. Manheim Township is in the process of drafting an amendment to the original ordinance. We'll have to wait and see what happens. Below is a copy of the e-mail I received:

See if you can get the language of the amendment beforehand. We need to make sure they don't do something like provide an "exception for licensed individuals", which would prohibit unlicensed carry (open or by otherwise exempted persons), and still be in violation of state law.

[Evolution]

Originally Posted by gnbrotz

See if you can get the language of the amendment beforehand. We need to make sure they don't do something like provide an "exception for licensed individuals", which would prohibit unlicensed carry (open or by otherwise exempted persons), and still be in violation of state law.

I just sent off another e-mail requesting that they forward the amendment to me when he receives it. I am sure if they say no that I could get it on a right to know basis? I don't anticipate them giving me any issues. Also I was pretty blunt in my original 2 e-mails. I told them it should be written to include both licensed and unlicensed individuals, who would want to open carry legally.

[gnbrotz]

Originally Posted by jcheinaman

I just sent off another e-mail requesting that they forward the amendment to me when he receives it. I am sure if they say no that I could get it on a right to know basis? I don't anticipate them giving me any issues. Also I was pretty blunt in my original 2 e-mails. I told them it should be written to include both licensed and unlicensed individuals, who would want to open carry legally.

Actually, they shouldn't be "writing" anything. They should be striking any provisions regarding the carry or possession of firearms. The State Legislature sets these limits. PERIOD.

[Evolution]

Originally Posted by gnbrotz

Actually, they shouldn't be "writing" anything. They should be striking any provisions regarding the carry or possession of firearms. The State Legislature sets these limits. PERIOD.

Well if they leave it open to all individuals that carry their firearms legally and they want it in the rules stating such then So be it. I mean if it makes them feel good, that is fine with me. As long as it isn't "restricted". We'll have to wait and see what the amendment actually states when I receive it. I think they just want the process to be "official". If it go's sour then I will have to contact them back or attend the next meeting in September.

[gnbrotz]

Originally Posted by jcheinaman

Well if they leave it open to all individuals that carry their firearms legally and they want it in the rules stating such then So be it. I mean if it makes them feel good, that is fine with me. As long as it isn't "restricted".

True, but I doubt their 'remedy' will be to note that "legally carried firearms are permitted." I guess I'm just a pessimist.

[Statkowski]

I am sure if they say no that I could get it on a right to know basis?

A draft copy of an ordinance change is not a public document until the ordinance change is voted on and approved. Sorry, the RTKL doesn't apply here. They can, as a courtesy, furnish you a copy, but they don't have to.

[Falcon four]

Washington Township, Westmoreland County:

Kunkle Park:

THE FOLLOWING ACTIVITIES ARE SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITED:

ü Driving or parking on grass areas or trails

ü Landing aircraft

ü Hitting of golf balls

ü Depositing refuse anywhere but in appropriate receptacles

ü Posting or distributing notices, advertisements or handbills

ü Possessing or discharging firearms or weapons

ü Possessing or setting off fireworks or explosive devises or launching of rockets

ü Use of electrical amplifying equipment

ü Using indecent or vulgar language

ü Domestic animals off a leash

ü Sale of alcoholic beverages

ü Sale or use of illegal drugs

ü Abusing or damaging any park facilities or structures

ü Any merchandising or using park as part of a for-profit business

ü Fires- except in designated or permitted areas

ü Removal of any Township property- all things contained in Kunkle Park, either man-made or occurring naturally, are the sole property of Washington Township

ü Anything else deemed inappropriate by the Washington Township Board of Supervisors or the Washington Township Police Department or regulated by Ordinance 49





I also checked out two other parks but did not find any prohibition.

[exceltoexcel]

Lansdowne

http://www.e-codes.generalcode.com/c...t=ws&cb=1627_A