Oley Ordinance Passed - Prohibiting Firearms in Township Building

[GunLawyer001]

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.

On the civil side, you run head-on into the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act, Title 42, Section 8541 et seq. Criminally, you'd have to find a criminal statute that applies to the legislative enactment of pre-empted ordinances; I don't know of any.

They are immune to these claims, civilly and criminally.

[AJG]

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

It has nothing to do with allowing anyone to piss on anyone. It is simply a question of the easiest and least expensive first course of action to try to resolve the issue, if that's actually what you want to do.

In any case, as GL pointed out, the likelihood of you being able to get anywhere with a private criminal complaint is probably about zero, while it certainly will create an atmosphere where attempting to get anything done peacefully will be about zero.

If legal action is required, I'm guessing that the more productive course of action may be to seek an injunction against enforcement of the ordinance. However, that's just a first thought on the subject and I attach the caveat that I am not in the business of dealing with political subdivisions.

[whoshisface]

You left out my LTCF appeal. in the middle of buying a house once that's finished 7/31. then yes I'm in are you allowed to appeal (should that be needed) or will I need another lawyer for that?

I'd I have to move the date up then I will. Let's find a way to proceed. I'm a nightmare client but I think we'll do well together.

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.

[MDJschool]

On the civil side, you run head-on into the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act, Title 42, Section 8541 et seq. Criminally, you'd have to find a criminal statute that applies to the legislative enactment of pre-empted ordinances; I don't know of any.

They are immune to these claims, civilly and criminally.

I'm not sure from where you derived a criminal immunity.

18 Pa.C.S. § 6119: Violation penalty
Except as otherwise specifically provided, an offense under this subchapter constitutes a misdemeanor of the first degree.
18 Pa.C.S. § 6120: Limitation on the regulation of firearms and ammunition
(a) General rule.--No county, municipality or township may in any manner regulate the lawful ownership, possession, transfer or transportation of firearms, ammunition or ammunition components when carried or transported for purposes not prohibited by the laws of this Commonwealth.
§ 903. Criminal conspiracy.
(a) Definition of conspiracy.--A person is guilty of
conspiracy with another person or persons to commit a crime if
with the intent of promoting or facilitating its commission he:
(1) agrees with such other person or persons that they
or one or more of them will engage in conduct which
constitutes such crime or an attempt or solicitation to
commit such crime;

Suppose it wasn't a criminal conspiracy to violate the 'limitation on the regulation of firearms and ammunition'. Then there is:

§ 5301. Official oppression.
A person acting or purporting to act in an official capacity
or taking advantage of such actual or purported capacity commits a misdemeanor of the second degree if, knowing that his conduct
is illegal, he:
(1) subjects another to arrest, detention, search,
seizure, mistreatment, dispossession, assessment, lien or
other infringement of personal or property rights; or
(2) denies or impedes another in the exercise or
enjoyment of any right, privilege, power or immunity.

So these singular people might have conspired to subject another to arrest (contrast with the word 'arrest' itself) or to impede a right, privilege, power or immunity, as the enactment of statute fixes the rights of certain parties (and here diminishes them).

I'm not certain where the township itself couldn't be charged with the crimes but I certainly think there is room for the public officers to be.

I'll have to collect the research later, but there's also probably going to perjury for violating their oath to support the constitutions by questioning the right to bear arms; penalty for failure to do duty, etc.

[GunLawyer001]

I'm not sure from where you derived a criminal immunity.

18 Pa.C.S. § 6119: Violation penalty
Except as otherwise specifically provided, an offense under this subchapter constitutes a misdemeanor of the first degree.
18 Pa.C.S. § 6120: Limitation on the regulation of firearms and ammunition
(a) General rule.--No county, municipality or township may in any manner regulate the lawful ownership, possession, transfer or transportation of firearms, ammunition or ammunition components when carried or transported for purposes not prohibited by the laws of this Commonwealth.
§ 903. Criminal conspiracy.
(a) Definition of conspiracy.--A person is guilty of
conspiracy with another person or persons to commit a crime if
with the intent of promoting or facilitating its commission he:
(1) agrees with such other person or persons that they
or one or more of them will engage in conduct which
constitutes such crime or an attempt or solicitation to
commit such crime;

Suppose it wasn't a criminal conspiracy to violate the 'limitation on the regulation of firearms and ammunition'. Then there is:

§ 5301. Official oppression.
A person acting or purporting to act in an official capacity
or taking advantage of such actual or purported capacity commits a misdemeanor of the second degree if, knowing that his conduct
is illegal, he:
(1) subjects another to arrest, detention, search,
seizure, mistreatment, dispossession, assessment, lien or
other infringement of personal or property rights; or
(2) denies or impedes another in the exercise or
enjoyment of any right, privilege, power or immunity.

So these singular people might have conspired to subject another to arrest (contrast with the word 'arrest' itself) or to impede a right, privilege, power or immunity, as the enactment of statute fixes the rights of certain parties (and here diminishes them).

I'm not certain where the township itself couldn't be charged with the crimes but I certainly think there is room for the public officers to be.

I'll have to collect the research later, but there's also probably going to perjury for violating their oath to support the constitutions by questioning the right to bear arms; penalty for failure to do duty, etc.

Well, no. Just not the way things work.

[MDJschool]

Well, no. Just not the way things work.

Which part of 5301 wouldn't a township legislative body member qualify?

A person
acting in an official capacity, as a township supervisor voting to enact a law
knowing that his conduct is illegal, having taken an oath to support the constitutions including that the right to bear arms shall not be questioned and that every man has the inherent and indefeasible right to liberty/property, alternately to uphold the law or similar
subjects another to arrest by which the enactment of the ordinance provides the legal (opposed to factual) part of jurisdiction for which no officer would ever have probable cause to arrest without.

So please, either be clear on what link is missing or provide the other law that excepts the member or the township from criminal liability. What is the finer point that we don't understand?

[whoshisface]

we want a case. Without a case we cannot actively fight against laws like lost and stolen. We need a first case. I don't want them to drop thirt illegal law I want them to act illegaly so as to be able to block these consistant violations in the future. I'll go, armed and ask point out how what they did is illegal. Then If cited Ill fight it out at great expense until it's ruled an illegal law. If they just bow we remove one illegal law if they fight and lose in court that sets the president for future cases.

Not to try and dissuade you from using GL's services, but this is something you should be able to take care of without the use of a lawyer. Let's use all the tools and resources provided here by fellow users from their past success in this territory, and if that doesn't work, then go the attorney route.

JMHO. I think it would be a very liberating experience.

[GunLawyer001]

Which part of 5301 wouldn't a township legislative body member qualify?

A person
acting in an official capacity, as a township supervisor voting to enact a law
knowing that his conduct is illegal, having taken an oath to support the constitutions including that the right to bear arms shall not be questioned and that every man has the inherent and indefeasible right to liberty/property, alternately to uphold the law or similar
subjects another to arrest by which the enactment of the ordinance provides the legal (opposed to factual) part of jurisdiction for which no officer would ever have probable cause to arrest without.

So please, either be clear on what link is missing or provide the other law that excepts the member or the township from criminal liability. What is the finer point that we don't understand?

I've resolved to try to avoid Internet legal arguments like this, they are a poor use of my finite resources.

Why don't you go ahead and find the last time that a federal, state, or local legislator was criminally prosecuted for his vote on a bill (in the absence of bribery), and we'll take a look at that?

[Statkowski]

I've resolved to try to avoid Internet legal arguments like this, they are a poor use of my finite resources.

I have to respect your opinion on this. Only you know how to best utilize your resources.

Why don't you go ahead and find the last time that a federal, state, or local legislator was criminally prosecuted for his vote on a bill (in the absence of bribery), and we'll take a look at that?

This, however, is a red herring thrown down to distract us from our goal. Here we have two statutes, 5301 and 6120, which appear to address the issue at hand.

Whether the private criminal complaint for section 903, 5301 & 6120 violations ever makes it past the county DA is immaterial. The MDJ will have a copy of the complaint. The DA will have a copy of the complaint. And, the news media will have a copy of the complaint. Think it won't get results?

[whoshisface]

It's cheap to file and maybe if done often enough da's might actually prosecute eventually. I see no harm in it.

I've resolved to try to avoid Internet legal arguments like this, they are a poor use of my finite resources.

Why don't you go ahead and find the last time that a federal, state, or local legislator was criminally prosecuted for his vote on a bill (in the absence of bribery), and we'll take a look at that?