PA Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Lower Merion Preemption Appeal
For those that have been following FOAC's challenge to Lower Merion's unlawful firearm possession and discharge regulations, today the PA Supreme Court has declined to hear Lower Merion's Petition for Allowance of Appeal - https://blog.princelaw.com/2017/07/1...m-regulations/
Re: PA Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Lower Merion Preemption Appeal
So not being a lawyer and such... Preemption was upheld and the Township cannot control or post signage against the legal carry of firearms on their properties?
Re: PA Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Lower Merion Preemption Appeal
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Parrisk
So not being a lawyer and such... Preemption was upheld and the Township cannot control or post signage against the legal carry of firearms on their properties?
From what I read on the blog, it appears LM has no standing in the matter any more. And, to answer your question, Yes.
Re: PA Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Lower Merion Preemption Appeal
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Parrisk
So not being a lawyer and such... Preemption was upheld and the Township cannot control or post signage against the legal carry of firearms on their properties?
Yes and they cannot regulate discharge of a firearm on their properties.
Re: PA Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Lower Merion Preemption Appeal
As one of your critics in the past, your recent victories in court have been great. Hopefully a few more come.
I wonder if the lawful/unlawful distinction could be used to axe the stolen gun reporting requirements some municipalities enact since they claim they're only regulating unlawful possession.
Re: PA Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Lower Merion Preemption Appeal
Quote:
Originally Posted by
DreadPirateMoyer
As one of your critics in the past, your recent victories in court have been great. Hopefully a few more come.
I wonder if the lawful/unlawful distinction could be used to axe the stolen gun reporting requirements some municipalities enact since they claim they're only regulating unlawful possession.
Thanks. I have a couple more in the pipeline, including whether a 302 is constitutionally sufficient to strip someone of a constitutional right - i.e. right to keep and bear arms.
Lost and stolen was already dealt with by the Commonwealth Court and held to be violative of Section 6120 in Clarke v. House of Representatives, 957 A.2d 361 (Pa. Cmwlth. Ct. 2008). In both Clarke and National Rifle Ass’n v. City of Philadelphia, 977 A.2d 78 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) the Commonwealth Court held that local government cannot regulate even consistent with the UFA.
Re: PA Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Lower Merion Preemption Appeal
Re: PA Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Lower Merion Preemption Appeal
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Parrisk
So not being a lawyer and such... Preemption was upheld and the Township cannot control or post signage against the legal carry of firearms on their properties?
In 2011, Lower Merion Township (Township) passed an ordinance amending section 109-16 of its Code (Ordinance)
to prohibit persons from “carry[ing] or discharg[ing] firearms of any kind in a park without a special permit, unless exempted.” Lower Merion To
wnship, Pa., Code §109-16. The Ordinance imposes a maximum fine of $600.00 per violation and authorizes the police to remove violators from Township parks or recreation areas.
They can't use governmental power to regulate gun possession. But see Footnote 9 of the Erie case.
Re: PA Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Lower Merion Preemption Appeal
Well done Mr. Prince! Thank you for all that you do!
Re: PA Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Lower Merion Preemption Appeal
Quote:
Originally Posted by
GunLawyer001
[I]
They can't use governmental power to regulate gun possession. But see Footnote 9 of the Erie case.
I know much to your disappointment, Lower Merion did argue, consistent with FN 9, that they were permitted to regulate as a private property owner and the Commonwealth Court ruled against them, although the author of FN 9, Judge Pellegrini, filed a dissenting opinion stating that they should be able to regulate as a private property owner. On their Petition of Allowance of Appeal, Lower Merion again, now with support from Harrisburg and Philadelphia as an Amici, focused on their right to regulate as a private property owner and the PA Supreme Court wasn't inclined to agree with them, so the Court declined to hear their appeal. It sure would be nice if others would submit amici briefs in OUR favor at least from time to time - but, alas, it seems like I am the only one that gives significant amounts of my time to the cause to ensure that our rights are protected.