Now Whitemarsh Township Proposes Lost or Stolen (Looks Very Promising)

[Devrbd]

Plymouth Township adopted Lost or Stolen last week. It only makes sense that neighboring Whitemarsh wouldn't be far behind. They've also invited EVERYBODY, not just township residents, to participate at the meeting.

Listed below is the public notice and meeting minutes from the Board of Supervisors meeting. In reading the minutes there does seem to be great concern of the enforceability, legality and financial burden this ordinance would create. Of course CeaseFire is present to answer all their questions.

http://pa.mypublicnotices.com/Public...e&AdId=1905585

WHITEMARSH TOWNSHIP NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT the Board of Supervisors of Whitemarsh Township, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, will hold a Public Hearing on Thursday, May 27, 2010 at 7:00 P.M. in the Township Building, 616 Germantown Pike, Lafayette Hill, PA to inform and obtain public comment and to consider enactment of the following Ordinance: AN ORDINANCE OF WHITEMARSH TOWN SHIP, MONTGOMERY COUNTY, COMMON WEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, AMENDING PART II, CHAPTER 53 OF THE CODE OF THE TOWNSHIP OF WHITEMARSH TO REQUIRE PROMPT NOTIFICATION TO THE WHITE MARSH POLICE DEPARTMENT OF LOST OR STOLEN FIREARMS; DEFINING 'FIREARMS' FOR PURPOSES OF THIS ORDINANCE; RE QUIRING THE POLICE DEPARTMENT TO MAINTAIN A RECORD OF STOLEN FIRE ARMS; PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR VIOLA TION OF THIS ORDINANCE; REPEALING IN CONSISTENT ORDINANCES OR PARTS OF ORDINANCES; PROVIDING A SAVINGS CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE Section 1 amends Chapter 53 of the Code of the Township of Whitemarsh, entitled 'Firearms' to add new section 53-5, 'Reporting lost or stolen firearms,' to require notification to the Whitemarsh Township Police Department within 72 hours when a firearm is lost or stolen; to define 'firearm' in accordance with the definition specified in 18 Pa.C.S.A. §6102; to provide for maintenance of a record of all reports of stolen firearms and annual reports to the Board of Supervisors; and to provide for penalties for violation of the ordinance. Section 2 repeals any ordinance inconsistent with this ordinance. Section 3 provides for the validity of the provisions of this ordinance remaining after the declaration of any other provision as invalid. Section 4 provides for the effective date of the ordinance. A full opportunity will be given to any citizen and all parties in interest attending the hearing to provide public comment.

Meeting Minutes (4/22)
http://www.whitemarshtwp.org/boards/minutes.aspx?id=383

3. Advertise Proposed Gun Ordinance
- Mr. Kilkenny explained that this ordinance is for the report of stolen or lost guns within 72 hours of discovery, with penalty of a fine for failure to report. He added that the failure to pay the fine could result in imprisonment for no longer than 90 days. He stated that he has seen correspondence from the Montgomery County District Attorney’s Office and the Pennsylvania Attorney General’s Office, in which there are potential problems with this ordinance. Mr. Kilkenny explained his opinion on the legality of the ordinance. He stated that an alternative to the ordinance is to adopt a resolution encouraging the General Assembly to make a state law regarding this issue.
- Supervisor Brooke quoted two court cases, one in which the merits of the case were never heard and one in which was determined that this ordinance is pre-empted by State Law. He added that the Montgomery County District Attorney feels that this ordinance is unenforceable. Supervisor Brooke encouraged the Board of Supervisors to adopt a resolution to encourage the state legislators to act quickly on this issue and remind residents in the township who own guns to report their lost or stolen guns. He added that he emailed several documents to Mr. Horrocks and the members of the Board of Supervisors: a letter from Mr. McGoldrick, of the Montgomery County District Attorney’s Office to Conshohocken Police Chief Orier; a copy of a letter from Attorney General Tom Corbett, dated August 24, 2009; and a sample copy of a resolution enacted by West Conshohocken.
- Joe Grace, Executive Director of Cease Fire, Pennsylvania, addressed concerns regarding the legal issues surrounding this ordinance. He stated that there have been conflicting court cases. He explained that the goal of this ordinance is to give those who carry a gun “a duty to report lost or stolen guns.”
- Supervisor Brooke inquired about how one would prove discovery. He stated that he would rather leave it as a state issue.
- Mr. Grace stated that State Representative Mike Gerber is in support of this step.
- Supervisor Brooke stated that a local law is not necessary right now, since the Township and Police Department can work together to get the word out about the importance of reporting lost or stolen guns.
- Supervisor Sterling clarified with Mr. Kilkenny that the courts in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania have not yet ruled on the merits of the ordinance.
- Chief Behr suggested that the Board of Supervisors adopt a resolution or ordinance regarding this issue to motivate people to report lost or stolen guns.
- Supervisor Hart expressed concern about a resolution having no enforceability.
- Supervisor Brooke quoted a case from the District Attorney’s Office that case law is still valid in that the lost or stolen gun ordinance has been pre-empted by state law.
- Robert Franz (Wildflower Drive) stated that he opposes the ordinance, because it punishes innocent gun owners. He suggested that the Board of Supervisors adopt the resolution and ask the State to take action. He raised concern about prison time for violation of this ordinance. Supervisor Brooke quoted the proposed ordinance in which imprisonment of no more than 90 days would result should there be a default in the payment of the fine.
- Supervisor Richards inquired about whether or not the Township could be sued should the Board of Supervisors adopt the ordinance. Mr. Kilkenny stated that if the ordinance is struck down, he would recommend an immediate repeal of the ordinance. He added that he didn’t think that a large pecuniary detriment to the Township would occur should the Township be sued. Mr. Grace stated that there is a pro-bono group that has volunteered to defend any municipality sued because of this ordinance. He added that no litigation has been filed in 14-15 months.
- Michael Gottley (an Attorney in Norristown) stated that the ordinance sets the Township up for a heavy financial burden should they be sued. He suggested that the Board of Supervisors adopt a resolution and wait to see what happens on the state level.
- Paul Good inquired about how it would be proven that someone did not know his or her gun was stolen.
- Supervisor Erlbaum stated that this ordinance is very important, and she is willing to move forward. Supervisor Hart stated that he wishes the State would take action, but in its absence, it may be up to municipalities to enforce the issue.
- Supervisor Richards inquired about the difference for passing this ordinance as a resolution and an ordinance.
- Supervisor Brooke agreed with the fact that this legislation is important, but he stated that the Township is legally precluded from enacting this ordinance at this time.
- Mr. Kilkenny explained that a resolution is a non-binding statement from the Board of Supervisors, but an ordinance is local law that has penalties.
- Chief Behr stated that there is no rush, and a resolution can be used to move forward at this time.
- Supervisor Brooke suggested that the Board of Supervisors pass the resolution and give the State time to render a decision.
- Mr. Grace stated that Whitemarsh Township is not legally precluded from passing the ordinance. Mr. Kilkenny concurred.
- On a Motion by Supervisor Erlbaum, seconded by Supervisor Sterling (Vote 5-0,) the Board of Supervisors TABLED the motion, which would have advertised a proposed gun stolen ordinance.
- On a Motion by Supervisor Brooke, seconded by Supervisor Richards (Vote 5-0,) the Board of Supervisors approved that a Resolution for this issue be placed on the May 13, 2010 Board of Supervisors meeting agenda.

[thefirstndsecond]

Once again it is time to stand up and be counted.

There has to be some legal ramification for putting on the books this kind of illegal law.

To me some one has already caused the violation of the state law and therefore is already illegal and should be punished.

The fact that cease fire PA, local chiefs, and local mayors are acting in this manner suggests to me CONSPIRACY in committing illegal and fraudulent acts across the board against State and 2A rights.

This may also be to create financial gain at the local municipality level.

Why can't we sue the pants off of Cease Fire PA, the mayors in the list, and the chiefs on the list for acting in this fraudulent, illegal manner?

Now that would be something to start a class action law suit.

I am not a lawyer, but if one stepped up and this could be done, why not.

[Devrbd]

Once again it is time to stand up and be counted.

There has to be some legal ramification for putting on the books this kind of illegal law.

To me some one has already caused the violation of the state law and therefore is already illegal and should be punished.

The fact that cease fire PA, local chiefs, and local mayors are acting in this manner suggests to me CONSPIRACY in committing illegal and fraudulent acts across the board against State and 2A rights.

This may also be to create financial gain at the local municipality level.

Why can't we sue the pants off of Cease Fire PA, the mayors in the list, and the chiefs on the list for acting in this fraudulent, illegal manner?

Now that would be something to start a class action law suit.

I am not a lawyer, but if one stepped up and this could be done, why not.

Couldn't agree more.

The meeting minutes read as if they are leaning toward rejecting the ordinance, but want more input from the community and groups other than CeaseFire.

[Dannytheman]

I usually make these meetings IF I know about them in advance. But, my umpiring schedule is full for the baseball season. So I have very few nights where I am not working at a ball game.

All I can ask is that people living in these towns show up and use the history of this illegal ordinance to fight it.

[WhiteFeather]

Plymouth Township adopted Lost or Stolen last week. It only makes sense that neighboring Whitemarsh wouldn't be far behind. They've also invited EVERYBODY, not just township residents, to participate at the meeting.

Listed below is the public notice and meeting minutes from the Board of Supervisors meeting. In reading the minutes there does seem to be great concern of the enforceability, legality and financial burden this ordinance would create. Of course CeaseFire is present to answer all their questions.

http://pa.mypublicnotices.com/Public...e&AdId=1905585


Meeting Minutes (4/22)
http://www.whitemarshtwp.org/boards/minutes.aspx?id=383

Devrbd a BIG THANK YOU for keep a look out on these things.

We just need to find a way to get in front of the anti gun groups so we can get boots on the ground (Local activist) armed with information as to How and Why this won't achive it stated intent or make anyone happy with the results or lack there of ... judging by any where else its already been tried.. even IF CeasefirePA can Buy their way into forcing a law in PA.

Its still NOT going to work, look at the BIG ZERO prosecution in all the places CeasefirePA has gotten the local governments to break the law and pass illegal ordinances. Where is CeasefirePA accountabilty?

CeasefirePA still claims they are legal ordinances and the courts have ruled so.

Everyone else says the local Lost or Stolen ordinances are “Not Enforceable” or in plain english -----ILLEGAL.

Everyone else that studies the laws, know the courts have only ruled that no one has standing, because no one has been harmed (yet), its a direct result of no one is enforcing the ordinances as they claimed at the time they would be used.



Trouble is CeasefirePA armed with all of their foundation money, with its hired board members gets to pick & start the battles, in most cases they win by default.

It still doesn't mean it a sound reason for enacting something based on the emotional concept with their usual wiggle words MAY or COULD work as CeasefirePA always claims. Bottom line everything about Mandatory Lost or Stolen Firearms is ALREADY illegal, so what the real point of CeasefirePA objectives? or really the end game plans of the foundation money that pays CeasefirePA hired people to under write this effort.

Read this report along with the proof in the lack of enforcement of existing laws


PA Firearms Laws & PA Commission on Sentencing Reports
http://acslpa.org/n-legislative/pa_firearms_laws.htm

[thefirstndsecond]

There needs top be a way for that piece of paper to be put together so it can be read quickly.

The average person will not take time to review the doc.

If it was put together on 1 piece of paper and pretty explained in English, (laymans terms) then it would be easier to explain.

[thundrr1]

I've sent my letter to all the members. They can be found here....

http://www.whitemarshtwp.org/boards/supervisors.aspx

I gave them my Mr. Charles Q. Average letter, as I gave to Swarthmore and Radnor leadership.

[thefirstndsecond]

I know it may seem trivial, but posting the letter you sent may be a good idea so others can get the general idea and either copy and paste or make some changes to do their own.

Some are lazy...

[thundrr1]

This is what I composed and sent.....

While not being a resident of the Township, but a Delco resident, I believe that the Board will be voting on an ordinance that has no useful purpose. Your proposed “Lost or Stolen” ordinance will do nothing to stop criminals from stealing and using a weapon, it will only make a criminal out of a law abiding citizen of the Township.

Let’s say 60 year old Charles Q. Average is a resident of the Township. Mr. Average has a revolver that he keeps tucked away in a drawer in the nightstand next to his bed (this is not an uncommon situation, you must admit). Mr. Average knows it’s there and rarely checks on the weapon. Well, one day while Charles is as work, a criminal sneaks into his home and steals only the weapon, after finding nothing of any value in the rest of the house. (Criminals are know to check out nightstands for such a prize). Three months go by. Mr. Average has had no reason to check the nightstand.

Or, his cleaning lady decides to grab the weapon for her boyfriend and again, Mr. Average has no reason to check the nightstand.

On a cold February evening a police officer knocks on Mr. Average’s door. He informs Mr. Average he is under arrest because his revolver has been recovered and was used in a murder two weeks ago. Charles is now a criminal. He just found out that he is also a victim of a crime.

I find it absurd that Township would place their citizens in this position. Charles Q. Average is an upstanding citizen. He helps with the fireworks every Fourth of July. He votes in every election. He never tries to get out of Jury Duty, in fact he serves proudly.
He is a Veteran. NOW he is a criminal. All because some TRUE criminal stole his home defense weapon that he hasn’t even seen or touched in two years.

Within minutes of Charlie finding out his weapon is missing, he’ll call the police on his own. He doesn’t need an ordinance to tell him to do that!

Before you vote on this ordinance, think about the repercussions it may have on your honest citizens that just want to be able defend themselves.

Thank you,