Chapman Borough Anti-Discharge Ordinance nonsense

[FormerPaConstable]

I'm writing because all of a sudden, in 1998, the borough of Chapman Quarries decided that the anti-discharge ordinance that was only ever enforced, naturally, in the proximity of the homes, on 12 acres along one street and some immediate side streets, was to include the entirety of the borough's 150 other acres where you can legally hunt. Since 1966 when my family bought 26.5 acres with two water-filled slate quarries we have been target shooting in the 100-yard square quarry hole with 80 foot walls. No one ever thought anything about this as it was a regular activity from time immemorial before we owned it. What annoys me now is the fact that since 1957 when the first anti-discharge ordinance was written, it was only EVER enforced by the Chapman Borough police in the proximity of the homes, but now the Colonial Regional police are expected to enforce the new law whenever the normal target shooting takes place in the same area with the same targets in the same manner. Other than the money to take it into court and have it summarily thrown out, what suggestions does anyone have?

[gnbrotz]

Local municipalities are preempted from regulating hunting, just as they are from regulating the possession/carry of firearms and ammunition. It's possible that if the ground is legal to hunt on, hunting preemption would prevent them from sanctioning you for doing something that is part of lawful hunting activity (ie - discharging a firearm).

[FormerPaConstable]

I more or less had that idea all these years since before 1998 when they tried the prohibitive ordinance and enforcement. Everyone I've talked to in law enforcement and attorneys has said as much. I guess the only thing that is standing in my way is the cash to 'plant it' in their 'cheeks' in court. Thank you for validating the contradiction in their legal standing.