Results 1 to 7 of 7
-
April 28th, 2011, 05:55 PM #1
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.
Last edited by D-FENS; April 28th, 2011 at 05:57 PM.
"Because I'm an American." - MtnJack
-
April 28th, 2011, 06:07 PM #2
Re: Possible Preemption violation in Township of Pine
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.
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.
-
April 28th, 2011, 06:09 PM #3Grand Member
- Join Date
- Jun 2007
- Location
-
PA,
Pennsylvania
(Delaware County) - Posts
- 3,604
- Rep Power
- 1246703
Re: Possible Preemption violation in Township of Pine
Discharge can be regulated, but not the carry or transport
Violation for sure and unenforceableLast edited by BimmerJon; April 28th, 2011 at 06:13 PM.
-
April 28th, 2011, 06:14 PM #4
Re: Possible Preemption violation in Township of Pine
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.
-
April 28th, 2011, 06:14 PM #5Grand Member
- Join Date
- Jun 2007
- Location
-
PA,
Pennsylvania
(Delaware County) - Posts
- 3,604
- Rep Power
- 1246703
-
April 28th, 2011, 06:17 PM #6Grand Member
- Join Date
- Jun 2007
- Location
-
PA,
Pennsylvania
(Delaware County) - Posts
- 3,604
- Rep Power
- 1246703
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...
-
April 28th, 2011, 06:18 PM #7
Re: Possible Preemption violation in Township of Pine
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
-
Hatfield Township Preemption Violation Fixed
By Jorg Schlagzeuger in forum PennsylvaniaReplies: 3Last Post: February 23rd, 2011, 10:38 PM -
East Marlboro Township - Preemption Violation
By West Chester in forum PennsylvaniaReplies: 3Last Post: February 21st, 2011, 06:08 PM -
Salisbury Township Preemption violation
By zackattack784 in forum LehighReplies: 3Last Post: February 21st, 2011, 06:03 PM -
New Britain Township Preemption Violation
By bac0nfat in forum Concealed & Open CarryReplies: 9Last Post: September 5th, 2010, 10:58 AM -
Preemption Violation--Tredyffrin Township--Chester County
By GL23 in forum GeneralReplies: 29Last Post: October 26th, 2008, 12:58 PM
Bookmarks