Salisbury Township Preemption violation

**zackattack784** · February 21st, 2011, 05:59 PM

I just found an ordinance forbidding firearms in Easton city parks so I figured it was only appropriate to try and find an ordinance for my home town. I don't have the time at the moment to challenge the Easton one, but I would be interested in fighting this one. Here's what it says:

§112. Rules and Regulations Governing Township Parks and Recreation Areas
A. Any of the listed acts are prohibited within any Salisbury Township park or
recreation place unless noted otherwise:

(4) Carrying, setting off, or discharging any firearms, air rifles, air pistols, slingshots or fireworks, including sparklers.

Seems like a preemption violation to me. What do you think?

**BimmerJon** · February 21st, 2011, 06:02 PM

Originally Posted by zackattack784

I just found an ordinance forbidding firearms in Easton city parks so I figured it was only appropriate to try and find an ordinance for my home town. I don't have the time at the moment to challenge the Easton one, but I would be interested in fighting this one. Here's what it says:

Seems like a preemption violation to me. What do you think?

Yes, it is a violation to restrict carry. Plenty of info on here to help start writing letters, attending meetings to get it corrected.

Good stuff!

**zackattack784** · February 21st, 2011, 06:03 PM

Originally Posted by BimmerJon

Yes, it is a violation to restrict carry. Plenty of info on here to help start writing letters, attending meetings to get it corrected.

Good stuff!

I'm gonna repost this and the Easton one in the PA forum. I just found the thread Greg started awhile ago about preemption stuff, silly me.

**Curmudgeon** · February 21st, 2011, 06:03 PM

Originally Posted by zackattack784

I just found an ordinance forbidding firearms in Easton city parks so I figured it was only appropriate to try and find an ordinance for my home town. I don't have the time at the moment to challenge the Easton one, but I would be interested in fighting this one. Here's what it says:

Seems like a preemption violation to me. What do you think?

Looks to me like you are correct.