PennDOT in KoP

[Chvyrs90]

I work for a consultant firm. One of our clients is PennDOT. A recent visit to their district office in KoP, I noticed signage indicating no firearms. As a government office, doesn't this violate pre-emption?

[ViperGTS19801]

PennDOT is a state-operated organization, correct?

Either way, I don't see how it could be a Victim Zone, since it's not on the list, as far as I know.

[MDJschool]

Of course it violates preemption:
• The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.
• All men are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent and indefeasible rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing and protecting property and reputation, and of pursuing their own happiness.
• To guard against the transgressions of the high powers which we have delegated, we declare that everything in this article is excepted out of the general powers of government and shall forever remain inviolate.
• Neither the Commonwealth nor any political subdivision thereof shall deny to any person the enjoyment of any civil right, nor discriminate against any person in the exercise of any civil right.

[wa3ra]

PennDOT centers don't ban them, unless the facility is leased and the property owner does.

[ByblosHex]

Either it's private property or it's a pre-emption violation.

[zackattack784]

Seeing how the PA Constitution and the U.S. Constitution don't share the same force of law as actual laws, I'm gonna say no, it's not a preemption violation.

(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.

No mention of state in there. Penndot is not a county, municipality or township.

[MDJschool]

Seeing how the PA Constitution and the U.S. Constitution don't share the same force of law as actual laws, I'm gonna say no, it's not a preemption violation.

"To prevent the evils which would inevitably result from the overthrow of the government, the equilibrium established by the Constitution must be preserved, and this can only be done by meeting on the threshold the first attempt at encroachment, whether arising from design, inattention or mistake, come from what branch of the government it may." Commonwealth ex rel. Hepburn v. Mann, 5 Watts & Serg. 403, 421 (Pa. 1843).

Shall we take up arms, then, zackattack784?

[zackattack784]

"To prevent the evils which would inevitably result from the overthrow of the government, the equilibrium established by the Constitution must be preserved, and this can only be done by meeting on the threshold the first attempt at encroachment, whether arising from design, inattention or mistake, come from what branch of the government it may." Commonwealth ex rel. Hepburn v. Mann, 5 Watts & Serg. 403, 421 (Pa. 1843).

Shall we take up arms, then, zackattack784?

If you challenge their no firearm sign and take it to court what will be given more weight?

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.

OR

The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

Very very few judges interpret the words of constitutions literally whereas laws tend to be interpreted much more literally than a constitution. I'm not saying which way is right, I'm just telling it how I see it. As it stands I think the challenge would lose. Add the words "or any state run entity" to 6120 and then you would win.

Anyone who thinks citing Article I Section 21 of the PA Constitution is enough to overturn a no firearm sign at Penndot is delusional. I wish it was, I really do, but even a few minutes looking at constitutional case law will reveal that judges don't really care what constitutions say.

[MDJschool]

Anyone who thinks citing Article I Section 21 of the PA Constitution is enough to overturn a no firearm sign at Penndot is delusional. I wish it was, I really do, but even a few minutes looking at constitutional case law will reveal that judges don't really care what constitutions say.

This is why I cited §§ 1, 21, 25, and 26. Pay special attention to § 25. Have you ever read any opinion that mentioned, let alone discussed, § 25 when § 21 had been mentioned? It's the ultimate preemption provision and it has been pretended as if it does not exist, and we suffer from a heinous 135 year RKBA jurisprudence because of it. Of course, we will never see an opinion discussing the two together if no one puts it together at the ground level and works it up the courts.

[zackattack784]

This is why I cited §§ 1, 21, 25, and 26. Pay special attention to § 25. Have you ever read any opinion that mentioned, let alone discussed, § 25 when § 21 had been mentioned? It's the ultimate preemption provision and it has been pretended as if it does not exist, and we suffer from a heinous 135 year RKBA jurisprudence because of it. Of course, we will never see an opinion discussing the two together if no one puts it together at the ground level and works it up the courts.

Its just like the 9th and 10th Amendments of the Constitution. They might as well not exist they are so infrequently used. I don't think I've ever read a case where the 9th Amendment was used as the sole reason for deciding the case. I know some privacy cases mentioned it but the Justices ultimately used other Amendments to support their main argument.