Oley Ordinance Passed - Prohibiting Firearms in Township Building

[jcabin]

What kind of good faith could they have really had? "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state shall not be questioned." Are you saying these guys didn't read the document for which they probable took an oath to uphold/obey/defend/support/whatever?

I support getting it taken care don't get me wrong. I'm just saying before throwing money at it, why not try and get it taken care of without spending money on an attorney? That's all I was trying to say

So it's okay to have elected officials piss on you? The time to have spoken was before they enacted the ordinance.

However, since they went through all the time, energy and money to enact the ordinance, it's time to return the favor.

If it makes the news (and why shouldn't it?), others will hear about it. They did it in Albion (Erie County) (see link here http://forum.pafoa.org/pennsylvania-10/90523-say-what-borough-albion-passes-gun-ban-page-8.html), and Albion's embarrassment went nationwide.

Again, I'm not saying don't take care of it at all. Help me understand how this is any different than where other individuals came before a township that already had ordinances in violation of preemption, and just showed them the statutes and had the ordinance removed(I was under the impression this has been successfully done, or hasn't it?)?

[anonymouse]

Here's the text from page B5:

Firearms banned from Oley building

The Oley Township supervisors have passed an ordinance that makes it illegal to carry firearms into the township building.

The ordinance covers firearms of all kinds.

It does not apply to the township's police officers, who work out of the building on Virgina Rose Road.

"We had an incident recently where an individual came into the building to address a protection from abuse complaint filed against him, and he had several weapons in his possession," police Chief David White said Thursday.

The ordinance states that violations are punihsable by a fine of up to $1,000.
- By Dan Andrews

[GunLawyer001]

What's different between this or a park citation? Both are criminal charges? This sounds like a reversal of opinion?

No difference, it's what I've been saying; that they MIGHT be able to have the same sort of "policies" on their owned property that any other property owner has, but when they use their state-derived power to criminalize it, they violate preemption. WalMart could put up a sign saying "no guns" on their WalMart-owned property, and as a private actor they could demand you leave if you have a gun, or lack shoes or shirt, or are selling hot dogs on their property; but WalMart can't make it a summary offense. If the property owner is a municipality, it's POSSIBLE that preemption doesn't remove that power (although it's equally possible that their status as a state actor extends to reduce their property-owner rights; until I see case law, I can't be sure either way. A state actor would violate the 1st Amendment by restricting your speech, where a private employer wouldn't.)

GL!

Represent me! I'll give you $2,000 cash (I need a written agreement). $1000 for whatever illegal crap they put on and $1000 for a retainer if such representation is needed. You have to cone with me to the meeting to record the event and give me play by play advice. That is if you can be in the same room with me . I'm serious. Pm me if you're interested in fighting a case like this.

It looks like we missed the meeting on the 17th. If you want help moving forward, this does look like it's ripe for a challenge, once you have standing. Standing would be achieved by carrying a firearm onto their property, being cited (and probably having the firearm seized, so I wouldn't use grandpa's minty 1911 as a prop); then you could challenge the ordinance, at the DJ level first, then appeal to Common Pleas, and perhaps 1 or 2 levels of appeal beyond that.

Or, a clearly-worded letter explaining how they stepped on their municipal Johnsons might work.

[knight0334]

No difference, it's what I've been saying; that they MIGHT be able to have the same sort of "policies" on their owned property that any other property owner has, but when they use their state-derived power to criminalize it, they violate preemption. WalMart could put up a sign saying "no guns" on their WalMart-owned property, and as a private actor they could demand you leave if you have a gun, or lack shoes or shirt, or are selling hot dogs on their property; but WalMart can't make it a summary offense. If the property owner is a municipality, it's POSSIBLE that preemption doesn't remove that power (although it's equally possible that their status as a state actor extends to reduce their property-owner rights; until I see case law, I can't be sure either way. A state actor would violate the 1st Amendment by restricting your speech, where a private employer wouldn't.)


It looks like we missed the meeting on the 17th. If you want help moving forward, this does look like it's ripe for a challenge, once you have standing. Standing would be achieved by carrying a firearm onto their property, being cited (and probably having the firearm seized, so I wouldn't use grandpa's minty 1911 as a prop); then you could challenge the ordinance, at the DJ level first, then appeal to Common Pleas, and perhaps 1 or 2 levels of appeal beyond that.

Or, a clearly-worded letter explaining how they stepped on their municipal Johnsons might work.

But a municipality doesn't own property privately, they do so in representation of the public as a whole as public property. Municipal property, easements, leases, and RoW's are public domain, voiding any private claim to such. ...its not the township's building, its the taxpayers' real-estate in trust to whatever government in question. Allowing government private property rights is fundamentally wrong.

If local governments can treat real-estate as private property, then they can gate off entire boroughs, cities, towns, etc - which they cant.

This ordinance if beyond fubar legally.

[AJG]

As an aside - I recall the PFA complaint/order would have precluded that person's ability to possess/carry a firearm???

Yes, but despite the fact that he won't obey that law, I'm absolutely certain the next clown will obey this new one.

[Statkowski]

I support getting it taken care of, don't get me wrong. I'm just saying before throwing money at it, why not try and get it taken care of without spending money on an attorney?

A private criminal complaint does not require the use of an attorney. You, yourself, can do one all on your own.

Again, I'm not saying don't take care of it at all. Help me understand how this is any different than where other individuals came before a township that already had ordinances in violation of preemption, and just showed them the statutes and had the ordinance removed (I was under the impression this has been successfully done, or hasn't it?)?

There's really no difference between the two, but there are. Concerning the parks, it's usually a case of an old, pre-preemption ordinance that was overlooked. But, in this case, this is a new ordinance from the get-go, some fifteen years since preemption. There's no excuse now for them not knowing better.

A private criminal complaint against each and every township supervisor, and the township solicitor, will get their attention.

[GunLawyer001]

But a municipality doesn't own property privately, they do so in representation of the public as a whole as public property. Municipal property, easements, leases, and RoW's are public domain, voiding any private claim to such. ...its not the township's building, its the taxpayers' real-estate in trust to whatever government in question. Allowing government private property rights is fundamentally wrong.

If local governments can treat real-estate as private property, then they can gate off entire boroughs, cities, towns, etc - which they cant.

This ordinance if beyond fubar legally.

Never said they own it "privately", but they sure as Hell own it. All property is managed by someone, and that manager decides who can use it, and how it can be used.

Your town owns 10 acres. YOU don't get to decide which parts are used for the police building, which parts are used for picnics. The town government decides. You can't hold meetings in the township meeting room without their permission. You can't rope off the town park and plant veggies. The property is owned by the government, not by the individual citizens; all you get to do is decide who runs the government.

It works the other way, too. If someone trips and falls on town property, nobody comes to you with the bill. A $50 million debt of your town is not going to garnish your personal paycheck, you can move away and avoid that entirely.

Towns are like corporations. Your shares of GM mean that you're one of the owners (and under Obama, we're all "owners" of GM now), but that doesn't allow you to walk into a GM plant and use "your" property for purposes contrary to the management of the property.

Your town baseball park can still exclude you if you don't buy a ticket. Your state roads can require you to have a driver's license to operate a motor vehicle, and they can exclude pedestrians from the asphalt. Federal lands are "owned" by the citizens of the USA, but that doesn't allow you to graze your herd or dig a mine there without permission.

There's no general principle that we citizens can use "our" land without any conditions established by the designated managers of the land. And there's a huge difference between land that is privately owned within the boundaries of your town or borough, and land that is actually owned by the local government. But local governments are entirely preempted from making laws or regulations that restrict gun ownership, and a summary ordinance is clearly a prohibited law or regulation, whereas a managerial policy that applies only to a specific parcel is more ambiguous.

[jcabin]

A private criminal complaint does not require the use of an attorney. You, yourself, can do one all on your own.

There's really no difference between the two, but there are. Concerning the parks, it's usually a case of an old, pre-preemption ordinance that was overlooked. But, in this case, this is a new ordinance from the get-go, some fifteen years since preemption. There's no excuse now for them not knowing better.

A private criminal complaint against each and every township supervisor, and the township solicitor, will get their attention.

Ok. So what you're basically telling me is they intentionally created this ordinance with the full knowledge that it is in violation of statutory law, and that simply showing up at the supervisors/town hall meeting will have no affect at all?

I see where you're coming from then, and thankyou for the clarification.

[GunLawyer001]

A private criminal complaint does not require the use of an attorney. You, yourself, can do one all on your own.
. . .

A private criminal complaint against each and every township supervisor, and the township solicitor, will get their attention.

This may be true; but a lawyer would probably know about such things as "statutory immunity" for lawmakers.

[jcabin]

This may be true; but a lawyer would probably know about such things as "statutory immunity" for lawmakers.

What if you can prove their intent was to infringe on protected/preempted lawful activity(i won't use constitutional) to keep certain citizens out off township property? They couldn't use the old "well you don't have to come here" could they? To add to that, gun owners aren't a protected class.