"Municipal Authority" subject to preemption?

[TechAlG]

Is a "Municipal Authority," formed under the Municipal Authorities Act of 1945 subject to preemption laws? I am finding conflicting information.

[tl_3237]

IMO, since they are creatures of the Commonwealth, they would be akin to state agencies and not a county or municipal agency. Thus 6120 preemption would not apply.

Character of the Authority
The municipal authority in Pennsylvania is an alternate vehicle for accomplishing public purposes rather than through direct action of counties, municipalities and school districts. The Municipality Authorities Act of 1945 describes an authority as “a body corporate and politic” authorized to acquire, construct, finance, improve, maintain and operate projects, provide financing for insurance reserves, make loans, and to borrow money and issue bonds to finance them.2

Although local government plays a role in creation of an authority and appoints the members of its board, the authority is not part of the municipal government. An authority is not the creature, agent or representative of the municipality, but is an independent agency of the Commonwealth. 3 It is a public corporation engaged in the administration of civil government. An authority is a separate legal entity with power to incur debt, own property and finance its activities by means of user charges or lease rentals. An authority can be a financing agent for a capital project, an operating entity or both. Authorities finance a significant share of local capital

improvements.

http://www.penntrain.net/pdf/munauthority.pdf

[Statkowski]

Based on the preceding, then, in order for a Municipal Authority to enact any sort of firearms regulation would require authorization by the state as posted in Pa. Code. No regulation (a principle, rule, or law designed to control or govern conduct) published, no regulation (the act of regulating or the state of being regulated) permitted.

It's not quite preemption, but......

[rmagill]

IANAL, but to play devil's advocate: Since "It is a public corporation engaged in the administration of civil government", could it be argued that it is an "incorporated town" - as stated in the UFA - which happens to be an "agency of the Commonwealth"?

[MrBi11]

This question if being fought in Michigan (I know different state but same question)

http://www.michiganopencarry.org/?q=cadl

http://www.libraryjournal.com/lj/hom...rying.html.csp

The Michigan Court of Appeals will hear oral arguments for CADL vs MOC July 11th, 2012 @ 10am. Main issues are argued will be...1. Is the field of firearms regulation fully preempted by the State? 2. Is open carry brandishing?

The precedent set by this case will affect every gun owner in the state, open carrier or otherwise.

[TechAlG]

IMO, since they are creatures of the Commonwealth, they would be akin to state agencies and not a county or municipal agency. Thus 6120 preemption would not apply.

http://www.penntrain.net/pdf/munauthority.pdf

From that same link (page 8):
Municipal authorities resemble municipal governments in some ways...
5. Authorities and municipalities are both subject to general state laws protecting the public interest, including the Sunshine Law, the Open Records Act and the State Ethics Act.

[TechAlG]

This Court has consistently held that municipal authorities are not the creatures, agents or representatives of the municipalities which organize them, but rather are "independent agencies of the Commonwealth and part of its sovereignty." Whitemarsh Township Authority v. Elwert, 413 Pa. 329, at 332, 196 A.2d 843 (1964);

So, I guess the question becomes: "can the Commonwealth enact rules which directly contradict their own laws?"

[streaker69]

I'm gonna take a guess that you either work for, or want to work for an MA and they have it in their employee handbook of no firearms on the premises?

[rmagill]

Also, a few lines below:

1. A municipal government is a “general purpose” unit of government, exercising powers of both a
governmental and entrepreneurial nature. It has residual police powers to protect the public safety,
health and general welfare. By contrast an authority exercises a limited entrepreneurial power only.

This states that municipalities have "residual police powers" whereas an authority "exercises a limited entrepreneurial power only". Again, IANAL, but this seems to indicate to me that they do not have the authority to prosecute criminally for any violations of their policies, thereby making it a civil mater.

However, because the authority is limited to entrepreneurial powers, I wonder if they can even legally create any sort of anti-2A ordinances/etc. that would stand up in any court.

Also, it is my hunch that if an authority were to call the police to enforce a no-firearms policy, the municipality - being bound by the UFA - would have to treat it like trespassing.

[TechAlG]

I'm gonna take a guess that you either work for, or want to work for an MA and they have it in their employee handbook of no firearms on the premises?

Neither. Working for anyone, their premises, their rules. I get that. I can't carry a gun IN my workplace, but I am allowed to keep one locked in the car AT my workplace.

Rumor has it that a person was removed from a CATA bus (State College) for open carrying a BB gun. On their website, it explains they are a Municipal Authority, etc, and their rules state "No weapons." In discussions with co-workers, the preemption question was brought up.