Mingo Creek Preemption Violation?

[4070BN]

I was looking for information about metal detecting at Mingo Creek Park in Washington County when I found this rule. See page 2 section 6.
http://www.co.washington.pa.us/downl...ingo%20map.pdf

This seems to violate the preemption clause. If it does, I'll take point on contacting the County. Is there a sticky with a standardized wording that I can use? If not would someone be able to assist me in assembling a brief message that I would be able to email? Perhaps a template could be post if there isn't already one, then all we'd have to do is a little editing. Any thoughts on this?

[Shisno]

IANAL, from my limited knowledge, they can regulate the discharge of firearms but they cannot regulate the possession. So you would be correct in thinking that it's a preemption violation.

[4070BN]

I was thinking an email using the wording below.

Kevin Garrison
Superintendent of Parks

Re: 18 Pa. C.S. §6120

Dear Mr. Garrison,
I do not know if you are familiar with Section 6120(a) of the Uniform Firearms Act (UFA) which prohibits counties, townships, boroughs, cities and other political subdivisions from passing ordinances dealing with the ownership or possession of firearms that are more restrictive than state law. This section of the UFA was passed in order to standardize firearms carry rules to avoid having a citizen suddenly becoming a criminal as he or she passed from one jurisdiction to another due to a crazy patchwork of firearms ordinances. This was and remains a good thing. Every firearms owner in the Commonwealth plays according to the same set of rules regardless of where they are. A copy of Section 6120(a) is listed below.

(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.
However, even though Section 6120(a) was originally enacted a number of years ago, numerous counties and other political subdivisions still have ordinances on the books that are in violation of state law. Below are 2 examples that I found while trying to find information on metal detecting in Mingo Creek Park:

1. Mingo Creek Park Map: Page 2 Section 6
http://www.co.washington.pa.us/downl...ingo%20map.pdf

2. Ten Mile Park: Page 1 Section 6
http://www.co.washington.pa.us/downl...int%20copy.pdf

Please feel free to contact me to further discuss this issue.

[Shisno]

I was thinking an email using the wording below.

Kevin Garrison
Superintendent of Parks

Re: 18 Pa. C.S. §6120

Dear Mr. Garrison,
I do not know if you are familiar with Section 6120(a) of the Uniform Firearms Act (UFA) which prohibits counties, townships, boroughs, cities and other political subdivisions from passing ordinances dealing with the ownership or possession of firearms that are more restrictive than state law. This section of the UFA was passed in order to standardize firearms carry rules to avoid having a citizen suddenly becoming a criminal as he or she passed from one jurisdiction to another due to a crazy patchwork of firearms ordinances. This was and remains a good thing. Every firearms owner in the Commonwealth plays according to the same set of rules regardless of where they are. A copy of Section 6120(a) is listed below.

(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.
However, even though Section 6120(a) was originally enacted a number of years ago, numerous counties and other political subdivisions still have ordinances on the books that are in violation of state law. Below are 2 examples that I found while trying to find information on metal detecting in Mingo Creek Park:

1. Mingo Creek Park Map: Page 2 Section 6
http://www.co.washington.pa.us/downl...ingo%20map.pdf

2. Ten Mile Park: Page 1 Section 6
http://www.co.washington.pa.us/downl...int%20copy.pdf

Please feel free to contact me to further discuss this issue.

Bold is mine. I dont think that part is exactly necessary. Maybe just stick with the facts and leave the personal viewpoints aside. You never know, it may entrench the guy more and make it harder to bring about change. Other than that, I think its a well written letter. And even if you leave that part in its still good.

[4070BN]

Thank You for your input. I took your advice and shortened the letter. It has now been sent.

Rep Sent for your help.

I'll let everyone know what happens.

[FNG19]

I was thinking an email using the wording below.

First of all, good job pursuing this. Hopefully, it'll be straight-forward. As a previous poster noted, 6120(a) doesn't prohibit regulation of discharge, just possession/etc. If you're going to email anyone, I would not contact the Superintendent of Parks unless he has the power to change the ordinances. I would go to the County Commissioners, but it would not be inappropriate to also include the Superintendent on that email/letter as a courtesy.

Interesting side note: The original set of rules was ratified on June 24, 1971. If memory serves, 6120 was enacted later in the 1970's. If I'm right, the ordinance was legal when they did it. It's possible the folks that passed the ordinance were no longer in office when 6120 went live.

On to the email, here's my suggested email starting with what you gave us to work with.

Re: 18 Pa. C.S. §6120

Not necessary, and the people reading the letter/email won't know what it means.

Dear Mr. Garrison,

See above about my feelings about who to send it to.

I am writing to you about the park rules available on the Department of Parks and Recreation's website for both Mingo Creek and Ten Mile Park. It appears that the ordinances covering the use of those parks as described in the rules are not in compliance with state law.

According to section 6 of both sets of rules, the "possession or discharge of any firearm (...) is prohibited (...)." However, 18 Pa. C.S. 6120(a) makes it clear that only the state may regulate "the lawful ownership, possession, transfer, or transportation of firearms(...)."

I have enclosed a copy of the rules of both Mingo Creek and Ten Mile Park as well as a copy of 18 Pa. C.S. 6120(a) below for your review. I am hopeful that the County will quickly work to update its ordinances to comply with state law. I look forward to hearing from you concerning this important matter.

Sincerely,

. . . .

That's my suggestion. It's a little less pointed than the original text while still getting your points across. It also removes the short blurb about the purpose of the UFA and 6120(a), which is useful for a follow-up and for talking to the Commissioners if need be. For an initial contact, it's sufficient to point out that they're not in compliance IMHO.


ETA: D'oh! Missed it by a few minutes!

[4070BN]

Good suggestion on the County Commissioners. I thought I would start a little lower, just in case it is a web site error, possible old rules. If it is not just a mistake, then I will work with the Parks Supervisor and escalate higher. Just didn't want to step on anyone's toes without giving the Parks Supervisor a chance to escalate.

[Statkowski]

Going straight to the top isn't necessarily a bad thing. Going straight to the top enables the corrections to be filtered down to the correct department for resolusion.

Of course, as previously stated, you don't necessarily want to step on toes or come off as over aggressive (i.e., a "gun nut").

Therefore, you might consider starting off with, "You may be unaware of such, but your park rules as presently written are in violation of state law. Your park rules were written in 1970, but the law was changed in 1995 prohibiting counties, townships, cities and boroughs from regulating firearms ownership and possession. Since the 1995 change did not specifically address parks and other municipal areas, one can understand how such was overlooked."

Or, words to that effect.

[DaveyC]

I have emailed both Garrison and Irey multiple times over the last 2 years, only to get a "we'll look into it" response. They are not changing a thing. I open carry my full size Springfield 1911 when in the park now.

[FNG19]

I have emailed both Garrison and Irey multiple times over the last 2 years, only to get a "we'll look into it" response. They are not changing a thing. I open carry my full size Springfield 1911 when in the park now.

Did you show up to meetings and stated your case, clearly, concisely, and with adequate supporting materials?

I'm not accusing you of anything. I'm trying to get a feel for what was done previously.