Fort Hunter: Rules/Reg & Firearms

[PA1936MN]

http://forthunter.org/

http://forthunter.org/visit/park-rules/

" 14. No person shall carry a knife upon their person having a blade of 3 inches or longer in length, possess any bow and arrow, prohibited offensive weapon, or discharge any BB gun, air rifle, pistol or firearm in any park, except on facilities expressly designate or provided for that purpose."

Is this against laws that are already in place in the state and fall under preemption?

[BenP]

http://forthunter.org/

http://forthunter.org/visit/park-rules/

" 14. No person shall carry a knife upon their person having a blade of 3 inches or longer in length, possess any bow and arrow, prohibited offensive weapon, or discharge any BB gun, air rifle, pistol or firearm in any park, except on facilities expressly designate or provided for that purpose."

Is this against laws that are already in place in the state and fall under preemption?

No because it only regulates the discharge of firearms and not the possession of them.

[twency]

http://forthunter.org/

http://forthunter.org/visit/park-rules/

" 14. No person shall carry a knife upon their person having a blade of 3 inches or longer in length, possess any bow and arrow, prohibited offensive weapon, or discharge any BB gun, air rifle, pistol or firearm in any park, except on facilities expressly designate or provided for that purpose."

Is this against laws that are already in place in the state and fall under preemption?

Their website says

FORT HUNTER MANSION AND PARK is a division of Dauphin County Parks and Recreation Department

so it sounds like they're municipally owned, in which case preemption would override their restrictions on the carrying of firearms and make those restrictions unlawful, AFAIK. Other restrictions, such as those on discharging firearms, are lawful.

Some "prohibited offensive weapons" (using the PA statutory definition of such) are firearms which are lawful to possess and carry for defensive purposes, as I understand it.

Edit:

18 Pa.C.S. § 908: Prohibited offensive weapons
...
(c) Definitions.--As used in this section, the following words and phrases shall have the meanings given to them in this subsection:
"Firearm." Any weapon which is designed to or may readily be converted to expel any projectile by the action of an explosive or the frame or receiver of any such weapon.
"Offensive weapons." Any bomb, grenade, machine gun, sawed-off shotgun with a barrel less than 18 inches, firearm specially made or specially adapted for concealment or silent discharge, any blackjack, sandbag, metal knuckles, dagger, knife, razor or cutting instrument, the blade of which is exposed in an automatic way by switch, push-button, spring mechanism, or otherwise, any stun gun, stun baton, taser or other electronic or electric weapon or other implement for the infliction of serious bodily injury which serves no common lawful purpose.
...

[BenP]

Under the first exemption the listed firearms are not prohibited if they are in compliance with the NFA. Are you saying a municipalty can't regulate the carrying of an illegal firearm under state law?

[knight0334]

Going on what I see - no, the rules aren't in violation of state law.

[twency]

Under the first exemption the listed firearms are not prohibited if they are in compliance with the NFA. Are you saying a municipalty can't regulate the carrying of an illegal firearm under state law?

No, I'm not saying that. Municipalities are free to regulate the unlawful carrying of firearms. I'm saying that a pistol with a silencer (for example) still meets the statutory definition of "prohibited offensive weapon" in 18 Pa.C.S. § 908 even if you meet an exception and are allowed to possess and carry it.

Part of the problem is Dauphin Parks' lack of definition of "prohibited offensive weapons". Since the park rules don't define the term, I think the most reasonable definition to use is the definition of that term in state law.

State law defines a "prohibited offensive weapon" to include a number of firearms which are nonetheless lawful to possess if they are in compliance with the NFA (or meet another exception). It's not necessarily illegal to possess and carry, e.g., a pistol with a silencer under 18 Pa.C.S. § 908 because there's a specific statutory exception which provides a defense if it is possessed compliance with the NFA; but the silenced pistol would still meet the definition of "prohibited offensive weapon" despite being lawful to possess (if meeting an exception).

...It is a defense under this section for the defendant to prove by a preponderance of evidence that ... with the exception of a bomb, grenade or incendiary device, he complied with the National Firearms Act...

So by prohibiting the carrying of "prohibited offensive weapons" the municipal park rules are regulating what may be the lawful carrying of a firearm, which they are preempted from doing by 18 Pa.C.S. § 6120.

But hey, I'm not a lawyer, and it's entirely possible that I'm misunderstanding the statutory language. I'm not convinced I'm right about this, I'm just trying to explain the reasoning behind my earlier post.