Penalty for shooting in Lancaster City.

[RoyJackson]

The Lancaster mayor has proposed an ordinance that would increase penalties for firing a gun within city limits.
Currently, the penalty is 30 days in jail. The increased penaty would be $500 fine and 90 days in jail for each shot fired.
I've got mixed emotions on this one... I'm against most gun laws (hell, all gun laws), but I don't see any legitamate reason for shooting within a city's limits (of course, that depends upon the city...how it's laid out...open space, etc.).
What do you guys think?

[theshadow]

Only thing I'd have to say is there best be an exception for Self-Defense. It would be a bad thing to have to defend yourself from a gang banger, and then the city for doing so.

[RoyJackson]

Originally Posted by theshadow

Only thing I'd have to say is there best be an exception for Self-Defense. It would be a bad thing to have to defend yourself from a gang banger, and then the city for doing so.

I agree with that. The article doesn't give the text of the proposed ordinance.
You can read the article here, but WGAL moves things through their web site pretty quickly, so I don't know how long that link will work.
You can also vote on a poll on the ordinance on that link.

[ChamberedRound]

I have a problem with discharge ordinances because they represent the always talked about "slippery slope". For example, what if not just a city, but an entire municipality adopted such an ordinance? In that situation, people with large tracts of land, like farmers, would be unable to discharge a weapon on their own property. Hunting on private property in such towns could also be a criminal act.

IMHO there's no need to legislate something which is common sense. If someone is foolish enough to discharge a weapon on a crowded street in a busy city, they're likely going to be charge with one or more of a number of other offenses anyway.

With that said, if one were to be passed an exception should be made for self-defense.

[WhiteFeather]

here is article before it dissappears

Mayor's Gun Proposal Draws Interest From Philly, Reading
POSTED: 8:29 am EDT August 15, 2007
UPDATED: 8:53 am EDT August 15, 2007

LANCASTER, Pa. -- The Lancaster City Council is considering a bill that would mean stiffer penalties for firing a gun.

The ordinance includes a $500 fine and 90 days in prison for each shot fired. The current ordinance calls for a 30-day prison sentence.
Mayor Rick Gray proposed the ordinance for a more appropriate punishment for the offense.

"Even though no one has been shot, no property has been damaged, it frankly terrorizes the residents of a community and it's just not acceptable behavior," said Gray.
Gray said mayors of other cities, including York, Reading and Philadelphia, are contacting him to learn more about the plan.
"It's sort of a different, innovative approach in a way to begin to deal with the problem and also to emphasize the serious nature of it."
The council plans to vote on the ordinance in two weeks.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Here is the bench mark question has anyone or how many people have been prosecuted for violations of the current ordinance calling for a 30-day prison sentence?

I don’t believe in letting people have a pass for indiscriminating shooting, or random shooting at things with no back stop including the police shooting at a snake it a tree and killing a 5 year old boy.

See link here. http://www.pafoa.org/forum/lounge-10...s-boy-5-a.html


Bullets go up and they come down somewhere, wondering if this includes air rifles as well or are there any exceptions. I can just imagine someone defending themselves or family, fires a warning shot in the ground and getting a harsher sentence than the perpetrators.

No ordinance text given so only have speculation, people who live in that area should get local gun clubs involved and attend that meeting in mass to voice their concerns, or be prepared to deal with consequences of a possible violation in the future..

[MarcS]

There has to be an exemption for self-defense. Simply wouldn't make sense without one.

This is stupid however, i can think of a handful of state laws the cover this already.

[NineseveN]

Originally Posted by MarcS

There has to be an exemption for self-defense. Simply wouldn't make sense without one.

This is stupid however, i can think of a handful of state laws the cover this already.

Exactly...recklessly discharging a firearm is already illegal in city limts under most circumstances; this is a needless change.

§ 2705. Recklessly endangering another person.
A person commits a misdemeanor of the second degree if he
recklessly engages in conduct which places or may place another
person in danger of death or serious bodily injury.

2707.1. Discharge of a firearm into an occupied structure.
(a) Offense defined.--A person commits an offense if he
knowingly, intentionally or recklessly discharges a firearm from
any location into an occupied structure.
(b) Grading.--An offense under this section shall be a
felony of the third degree.
(c) Defense.--It is a defense to prosecution under this
section that:
(1) the person discharging the firearm was a law
enforcement officer engaged in the performance of his
official law enforcement duties; or
(2) the person discharging the firearm was engaged in a
hunting activity; and
(i) the discharge of the firearm took place from a
location where the hunting activity is lawful; and
(ii) the passage of the projectile from the firearm
into the occupied structure was not intentional, knowing
or reckless.
(d) Definitions.--As used in this section, the following
words and phrases shall have the meanings given to them in this
subsection:
"Firearm." Any weapon which is designed to or may readily be
converted to expel any projectile by the action of an explosion
or the frame or receiver of any such weapon.
"Occupied structure." Any structure, vehicle or place
adapted for overnight accommodation of persons or for carrying
on business therein, whether or not a person is actually
present.
(Dec. 20, 2000, P.L.831, No.116, eff. 60 days)

2000 Amendment. Act 116 added section 2707.1.

5503. Disorderly conduct.
(a) Offense defined.--A person is guilty of disorderly
conduct if, with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance
or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, he:
(1) engages in fighting or threatening, or in violent or
tumultuous behavior;
(2) makes unreasonable noise;
(3) uses obscene language, or makes an obscene gesture;
or
(4) creates a hazardous or physically offensive
condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose of
the actor.
(b) Grading.--An offense under this section is a misdemeanor
of the third degree if the intent of the actor is to cause
substantial harm or serious inconvenience, or if he persists in
disorderly conduct after reasonable warning or request to
desist. Otherwise disorderly conduct is a summary offense.
(c) Definition.--As used in this section the word "public"
means affecting or likely to affect persons in a place to which
the public or a substantial group has access; among the places
included are highways, transport facilities, schools, prisons,
apartment houses, places of business or amusement, any
neighborhood, or any premises which are open to the public.

Cross References. Section 5503 is referred to in sections
3573, 8902 of Title 42 (Judiciary and Judicial Procedure).

Could they not make the case for any of the above without this new proposal?

[Skuggi]

can anyone in lancaster city confirm this contact information for me?

http://www.cityoflancasterpa.com/lan...A=672&Q=517660

Also do they have the full proposal anywhere that I can read?

[Skuggi]

Ok, it's not so bad, got word back from the mayors office and the city clerk. I'll post them how I got them for ya.

The answer to your question about self-defense is found in B. 4. This is the current ordinance and that part of the ordinance does not change.



Julianne Dickson



129-13. Acts prohibited.

A.
A person is guilty of disorderly conduct (discharging a firearm) if he or she causes the discharge of a firearm anywhere within the City of Lancaster, subject to the exceptions set forth in Subsection B of this § 129-13.

B.
The following acts shall not constitute a violation of Subsection A of this § 129-13:

(1)
The discharge of a firearm by a law enforcement officer or military personnel acting within the line of duty, including but not limited to active operations, training exercises and ceremonies.

(2)
The discharge of a firearm for purposes of hunting or other activities regulated by and conducted in accordance with the Game and Wild Life Code of Pennsylvania.

(3)
The discharge of a firearm within a properly constructed and legally permitted firing range duly established within the City of Lancaster.

(4)
The discharge of a firearm in defense of human life or the residence or place of business of the person discharging the firearm.

(5)
The discharge of a firearm at an event, for which the party organizing or promoting such event has obtained a special permit issued by the Chief of Police of the City of Lancaster.

And here is the full text of the proposal from the city clerk's office.

sFILE OF THE CITY CLERK

ADMINISTRATION ORDINANCE NO. _____________, 2007

ADMINISTRATION BILL NO. 13 - 2007

INTRODUCED – AUGUST 14, 2007

ADOPTED BY COUNCIL – _________________, 2007

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LANCASTER, LANCASTER COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA AMENDING CHAPTER 129 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF LANCASTER, SECTIONS 129-12, 129-13 AND 129-15 TO AMEND THE DEFINITIONS OF FIREARM AND DISCHARGE TO EXCLUDE THE USE OF FIREARMS AT MILITARY FUNERALS AND SIMILAR CEREMONIES, AND TO MODIFY THE PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION OF THE CODE PROVISIONS RELATING TO DISCHARGE OF FIREARMS, PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF INCONSISTENT ORDINANCES; PROVIDING FOR THE SEVERABILITY OF THE ORDINANCE; AND PROVIDING THAT THE ORDINANCE SHALL TAKE EFFECT AS PROVIDED BY PENNSYLVANIA LAW.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE AND IT IS HEREBY ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the City Council of the City of Lancaster, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, as follows:

SECTION 1. The Code of the City of Lancaster, Chapter 129 – Disorderly Conduct, Article V—Discharge of Firearms, Section 129-12—Definitions, be and hereby is amended by amending the definitions of “Discharge” and “Firearm” to read as follows:
“DISCHARGE—The expulsion of a projectile from a Firearm or the operation of a Firearm in such a manner so as to lead one to reasonably conclude by sight or sound, that a projectile was expelled from a Firearm. If the Firearm used is capable of the expulsion of a projectile, its firing alone shall be sufficient to constitute a discharge and no further proof of the expulsion of a projectile shall be necessary.”
“FIREARM—Any device which is designed and intended to expel a projectile by action of gun powder, any other explosive, compressed air, compressed gas or mechanical device including, any device which, when discharged, would by sound or otherwise, (1) lead another to reasonably conclude by sight or sound that the device expelled a projectile or (2) give the appearance of the expulsion of a projectile even though no expulsion of a projectile occurred. By way of example and not limitation, items that are to be considered Firearms under this Article include guns, pistols, rifles and shotguns. The definition of “Firearm” shall not be deemed to include items that are traditionally considered to be children’s toys when used in the manner for which they were designed. The definition of “firearm” shall not include starter pistols when used in the manner in which they were intended; i.e. to signify the start of a race or other similar event.”
SECTION 2. The Code of the City of Lancaster, Chapter 129 – Disorderly Conduct, Article V – Discharge of Firearms, Section 129-13 – Acts Prohibited, be and hereby is amended by adding the following Subsection (6) to Subpart B:
“(6) The discharge of a firearm at a military funeral or other similar ceremony provided that the party organizing such funerals or ceremonies has obtained a permit in accordance with Section 129-14 hereof from the Chief of Police. For these ceremonies and funerals, the Chief of Police may issue a permit for the organizing party that covers all such funerals or ceremonies to be conducted by such party whether then contemplated or not and such permit shall remain in force until repealed by the Chief of Police.”
SECTION 3. The Code of the City of Lancaster, Chapter 129-Disorderly Conduct, Article V—Discharge of Firearms, Section 129-15—Violation and Penalties be and hereby is amended to read as follows:
“Whoever violates any provision of this Article V shall upon conviction thereof in a summary proceeding before any district justice, be fined $500.00 for each offense and the cost of prosecution and shall be ordered to pay restitution, in an amount determined by the court, for damages to person or properties suffered by a victim as a result of the violation of Article V and shall serve a term of imprisonment of 90 days. Each Discharge as defined herein shall constitute a separate and distinct offense and sentences therefore shall be imposed for each offense and may not run concurrently but must run consecutively to each other. The fines collected by the district justice for a violation of provisions of this Article shall be paid over to the City of Lancaster.”
SECTION 4. All ordinances or resolutions or parts of ordinances or resolutions insofar as they are inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed and rescinded.
SECTION 5. In the event any provision, section, sentence, clause or part of this Ordinance shall be held to be invalid, such invalidity shall not affect or impair any of the remaining provisions, sections, sentences, clauses or parts of this Ordinance; it being the intent of the City of Lancaster that the remainder of the Ordinance shall be and shall remain in full force and effect.
SECTION 6. This Ordinance shall become effective as provided by the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
DULY ORDAINED AND ENACTED this ______ day of _______________, 2007, by the Council of the City of Lancaster, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, in lawful session duly assembled.
ATTEST: CITY OF LANCASTER



By:
Janet Spleen, City Clerk J. Richard Gray, Mayor

I'm not liking that there is no amendment to fire for people with more rural property who may have a varmint problem or need to protect livestock. There have been cries about that, but I am not familiar enough with the area.

[RoyJackson]

Originally Posted by Skuggi

I'm not liking that there is no amendment to fire for people with more rural property who may have a varmint problem or need to protect livestock. There have been cries about that, but I am not familiar enough with the area.

Lancaster City is pretty congested. I don't think there's any rural areas that would be included.

Now, York City is different...a ¼ mile outside of York is pretty rural.

I do think ChamberedRound has a good point about "slippery slopes" though. And, since other laws already cover reckless endangerment and such, I don't see this ordinance being necessary.