Pennsylvania Firearm Owners Association
Results 1 to 7 of 7
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    North Huntingdon, Pennsylvania
    (Westmoreland County)
    Posts
    1,488
    Rep Power
    435047

    Default Possible Preemption violation in Township of Pine

    Howdy, folks,

    I am curious if this is a violation of state preemption. Can anyone better versed clarify for me?

    http://www.ecode360.com/ecode3-back/...91354&all=true

    § 104-1. Rifles to be regulated.

    A. No person shall, except in necessary defense of person or property, use air rifle of a caliber of .22 rimfire or greater within the Township of Pine, except as herein provided.
    B. No person shall, except in necessary defense of person or property, fire or discharge any rifle of a caliber of .22 rimfire or greater within the Township of Pine, except as herein provided.




    § 104-2. Use delineated.

    A. Rifles of a caliber of .22 rimfire or greater shall be deemed to be used within the terms of this chapter if they are loaded and carried by any person, regardless of whether or not the firearms have been, are being or are intended to be discharged.
    B. The mere act of carrying firearms at any place other than an approved rifle range shall be sufficient under this chapter to include their use.
    C. The transporting of firearms by automobile or other conveyance through the Township, which said firearms are not loaded and are being transported, shall not be deemed to be a violation of this chapter.

    I appreciate everyone's time. Thank you.
    Last edited by D-FENS; April 28th, 2011 at 05:57 PM.
    "Because I'm an American." - MtnJack

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Eastern, Pennsylvania
    Posts
    1,890
    Rep Power
    463885

    Default Re: Possible Preemption violation in Township of Pine

    Quote Originally Posted by D-FENS View Post
    Howdy, folks,

    I am curious if this is a violation of state preemption. Can anyone better versed clarify for me?

    http://www.ecode360.com/ecode3-back/...91354&all=true

    I appreciate everyone's time. Thank you.
    Yep. Sounds like a clear preemption violation to me.

    (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.
    On second thought, I'm a little confused. Part A of 104-1 says you can't use air rifles. Where as in 104-1 B it say no discharging firearms (which is a legal provision).

    Then 104-2 A defines what "USE" means, but USE isn't used in 104-1 B. I'm not sure if this is a preemption violation or not because I'm not exactly sure what they're outlawing.
    Last edited by zackattack784; April 28th, 2011 at 06:11 PM.
    I am not a lawyer and nothing I say should be construed as legal advice.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    PA, Pennsylvania
    (Delaware County)
    Posts
    3,604
    Rep Power
    1246703

    Default Re: Possible Preemption violation in Township of Pine

    Discharge can be regulated, but not the carry or transport


    Violation for sure and unenforceable
    Last edited by BimmerJon; April 28th, 2011 at 06:13 PM.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Eastern, Pennsylvania
    Posts
    1,890
    Rep Power
    463885

    Default Re: Possible Preemption violation in Township of Pine

    Quote Originally Posted by BimmerJon View Post
    Discharge can be regulated, but not the carry or transport


    Violation for sure
    Not so quick. They outlaw use of air rifles. Use means "Rifles of a caliber of .22 rimfire or greater shall be deemed to be used within the terms of this chapter if they are loaded and carried by any person, regardless of whether or not the firearms have been, are being or are intended to be discharged." and "The mere act of carrying firearms at any place other than an approved rifle range shall be sufficient under this chapter to include their use."

    It doesn't say you can't "use" a rifle. It just says you can't fire or discharge one. Based on a strictly literal translation I don't think this is a preemption violation, though I do believe the intent was to prohibit the carrying of rifles (a preemption violation).
    I am not a lawyer and nothing I say should be construed as legal advice.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    PA, Pennsylvania
    (Delaware County)
    Posts
    3,604
    Rep Power
    1246703

    Default Re: Possible Preemption violation in Township of Pine

    Quote Originally Posted by zackattack784 View Post
    Yep. Sounds like a clear preemption violation to me.



    On second thought, I'm a little confused. Part A of 104-1 says you can't use air rifles. Where as in 104-1 B it say no discharging firearms (which is a legal provision).

    Then 104-2 A defines what "USE" means, but USE isn't used in 104-1 B. I'm not sure if this is a preemption violation or not because I'm not exactly sure what they're outlawing.
    104-B. Is the only thing legal and enforceable. Everything else is not

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    PA, Pennsylvania
    (Delaware County)
    Posts
    3,604
    Rep Power
    1246703

    Default Re: Possible Preemption violation in Township of Pine

    Just saw "air rifle". Poorly written, I don't know what the hell they are trying to regulate... Either way, I know what they can or can't...

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Eastern, Pennsylvania
    Posts
    1,890
    Rep Power
    463885

    Default Re: Possible Preemption violation in Township of Pine

    Quote Originally Posted by BimmerJon View Post
    104-B. Is the only thing legal and enforceable. Everything else is not
    While I realize any prohibition on carrying is unenforceable, it doesn't mean you can't be charged. Then you have to go to court and fight it (not exactly an appealing proposition). But based solely on the wording, I don't think the statute actually prohibits the carrying of rifles (though I have no doubt that was the intent). It's a really really poorly written ordinance.
    I am not a lawyer and nothing I say should be construed as legal advice.

Similar Threads

  1. Hatfield Township Preemption Violation Fixed
    By Jorg Schlagzeuger in forum Pennsylvania
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: February 23rd, 2011, 10:38 PM
  2. East Marlboro Township - Preemption Violation
    By West Chester in forum Pennsylvania
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: February 21st, 2011, 06:08 PM
  3. Salisbury Township Preemption violation
    By zackattack784 in forum Lehigh
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: February 21st, 2011, 06:03 PM
  4. New Britain Township Preemption Violation
    By bac0nfat in forum Concealed & Open Carry
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: September 5th, 2010, 10:58 AM
  5. Replies: 29
    Last Post: October 26th, 2008, 12:58 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •