Radnor Township Commissioners Meeting Tonight 6-21 7 PM

[lprgcFrank]

Did the commissioners comment about the firearms? Did you get to speak?

I wish I'd checked their calendar

No comments from the commissioners - just dirty looks from Spingler and Nagle. I just smiled.

My intent for going was to just show that we are firm in our position and that we will be at the meetings. Even though we have a meeting on the 18th w/Rice, we're not going away until the ordinance is amended to be in compliance with State law.

[IronSight]

Keep up the good work, I thought I could make that Commissioners meeting, some things came up unfortunately and I've been off the boards - and off of work on these matters for a couple days now.

Again, nice job. Now, if I'm not mistake, I thought a public comment period was required at these kinds of meetings, I'll look into that.

[lprgcFrank]

Very positive meeting w/ township manager & solicitor for Steve and I.
They will introduce the following amendmet to the ordinance that addresses the preemption issue:

Possession or use of any type of firearms except as in compliance with the Pennsylvania Firearms Act, PA C.S. 6101, et seq. Archery equipment may only be used n special areas as may be provided for such use.


This will be proposed at the meeting on the 13th.

[Kb! Bob]

Very positive meeting w/ township manager & solicitor for Steve and I.
They will introduce the following amendme t to the ordinance that addresses the premption issue:

Posession or use of any type of firearms ex ept as in compliance with the Pennsylvania Firearms Act, PA C.S. 6101, et seq. Archery equipment may only be used n special areas as may be provided for such use.


This will be proposed at the meeting on the 13th.

Awesome job! I, too, got waylayed last minute unavoidably. Frank, if you walk by my house I think you'll see why!!

I will be sure to be present at the meeting on the 13th, and I think its very positive that the Manager is so receptive. Him coming from Ohio to replace an ousted manager is ripe for a shake-up. A fresh perspective is just what the doctor ordered on in this Township.

[lprgcFrank]

Awesome job! I, too, got waylayed last minute unavoidably. Frank, if you walk by my house I think you'll see why!!

I will be sure to be present at the meeting on the 13th, and I think its very positive that the Manager is so receptive. Him coming from Ohio to replace an ousted manager is ripe for a shake-up. A fresh perspective is just what the doctor ordered on in this Township.

The new township manager seems to be a very nice guy. He's a hunter and was very supportive of getting this fixed. What a change from the previous manager....

[GunLawyer001]

. . .
They will introduce the following amendmet to the ordinance that addresses the preemption issue:

Possession or use of any type of firearms except as in compliance with the Pennsylvania Firearms Act, PA C.S. 6101, et seq. Archery equipment may only be used n special areas as may be provided for such use.
. . .

That's in the right direction, but the language could be improved. That places the burden on the citizen to prove that his possession or use is "in compliance with" the UFA, which doesn't address a lot of situations.

If possible, better language would be "Possession or use of any type of firearms where such possession or use is in violation of the Pennsylvania Uniform Firearms Act..." This places the burden on the municipality to show that your possession or use is unlawful, instead of placing the burden on you to prove that it's lawful. To prove that behavior is lawful, in theory you'd have to go through every single statute and show that the elements of each one are not met; to prove that it's UNLAWFUL, the DA just has to say "here, look at Section 61XX, this act by the defendant is unlawful".

On a deeper level, any municipal ordinance that criminalizes behavior that's already unlawful, seems pointless. But preemption means that they can't do any more than that. So maybe they should just delete that ordinance.

[lprgcFrank]

That's in the right direction, but the language could be improved. That places the burden on the citizen to prove that his possession or use is "in compliance with" the UFA, which doesn't address a lot of situations.

If possible, better language would be "Possession or use of any type of firearms where such possession or use is in violation of the Pennsylvania Uniform Firearms Act..." This places the burden on the municipality to show that your possession or use is unlawful, instead of placing the burden on you to prove that it's lawful. To prove that behavior is lawful, in theory you'd have to go through every single statute and show that the elements of each one are not met; to prove that it's UNLAWFUL, the DA just has to say "here, look at Section 61XX, this act by the defendant is unlawful".

On a deeper level, any municipal ordinance that criminalizes behavior that's already unlawful, seems pointless. But preemption means that they can't do any more than that. So maybe they should just delete that ordinance.

Thanks for the feedback- I'll pass along.
I agree with the if its already illegal point, but they need a sop for the hard line anti's to get it passed.

[lprgcFrank]

That's in the right direction, but the language could be improved. That places the burden on the citizen to prove that his possession or use is "in compliance with" the UFA, which doesn't address a lot of situations.

If possible, better language would be "Possession or use of any type of firearms where such possession or use is in violation of the Pennsylvania Uniform Firearms Act..." This places the burden on the municipality to show that your possession or use is unlawful, instead of placing the burden on you to prove that it's lawful. To prove that behavior is lawful, in theory you'd have to go through every single statute and show that the elements of each one are not met; to prove that it's UNLAWFUL, the DA just has to say "here, look at Section 61XX, this act by the defendant is unlawful".

On a deeper level, any municipal ordinance that criminalizes behavior that's already unlawful, seems pointless. But preemption means that they can't do any more than that. So maybe they should just delete that ordinance.

Gunlawyer You are the man. I just got an e-mail back from Mr. Rice and he agreed to amend the ordinance as you suggested!

Thank you, Thank you Thank you!!

[GunLawyer001]

Gunlawyer You are the man. I just got an e-mail back from Mr. Rice and he agreed to amend the ordinance as you suggested!

Thank you, Thank you Thank you!!

Happy to be of service.

[lprgcFrank]

Well the proposed ordinance as tweaked by gunlawyer is on the agenda for tonight. It's item AA on the agenda. Going to be a long one tonight.