Firearms Restricted

[SamF]

Whats your take on the following article? I just read it on my Townships website and I'm wondering if they might try to use this to hassle either an OC citizen or LTCF holder. The "except in defense of person or property.." tells me likely not but...

Thoughts?

BTW I am new and been reading for a few months but very no posts. How Y'all doin.

Sam

Ordinance #1466

Article 1 Firearms



48-1 Discharge, carrying, or possession of firearms restricted.
No person shall, except in necessary defense of person or property,
carry, possess, fire, or discharge any gun, firearm, bow and arrow,
BB gun, air gun, spring gun, paintball gun, or any implement which impels
with force a metal pellet or projectile of any kind, within the Township of
Springfield; provided, however, nothing herein shall be interpreted to
prohibit the firing or discharge of said implements at properly
constructed and supervised ranges which have been approved by the
Chief of Police of the Township of Springfield.
Adopted this 11th day of September, 2007 by the
Board of Commissioners of the Township of Springfield.

[BestDefense=StrongOffense]

First off, welcome.
While i dont intend to defend myself with a paintball gun, I do consider the legal carrying of firearms "necessary" for defense of person and/or property. Aside from that, any attempt to regulate the legal carrying of firearms by your municipality is a preemption violation.

[Kurt_D]

Except for the "fire" or "discharge" portions, if Spfld Twp were to try to act on that ordinance, they would be in violation of 18 Pa.C.S. § 6120: (a)...

(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.

The fact that they wrote that thing is in violation of the above...

[gascolator]

Except for the "fire" or "discharge" portions, if Spfld Twp were to try to act on that ordinance, they would be in violation of 18 Pa.C.S. § 6120: (a)...



The fact that they wrote that thing is in violation of the above...

They probably wrote it prior to the latest state-level legislation.

[knight0334]

They probably wrote it prior to the latest state-level legislation.

I thought that at first, but then I saw the part in bold.

Preemption has been around a lot longer than this ordinance.

48-1 Discharge, carrying, or possession of firearms restricted.
No person shall, except in necessary defense of person or property,
carry, possess, fire, or discharge any gun, firearm, bow and arrow,
BB gun, air gun, spring gun, paintball gun, or any implement which impels
with force a metal pellet or projectile of any kind, within the Township of
Springfield; provided, however, nothing herein shall be interpreted to
prohibit the firing or discharge of said implements at properly
constructed and supervised ranges which have been approved by the
Chief of Police of the Township of Springfield.
Adopted this 11th day of September, 2007 by the
Board of Commissioners of the Township of Springfield.

[Statkowski]

That part of the township ordinance, enacted in 2007, prohibiting the carrying or possession of guns or firearms was preempted as early as 1974. Here's the entire section from the Official state legislature website http://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI.../HTM/18/18.HTM:

§ 6120. Limitation on the regulation of firearms and ammunition.

(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.

(a.1) No right of action.--

(1) No political subdivision may bring or maintain an action at law or in equity against any firearms or ammunition manufacturer, trade association or dealer for damages, abatement, injunctive relief or any other relief or remedy resulting from or relating to either the lawful design or manufacture of firearms or ammunition or the lawful marketing or sale of firearms or ammunition to the public.

(2) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to prohibit a political subdivision from bringing or maintaining an action against a firearms or ammunition manufacturer or dealer for breach of contract or warranty as to firearms or ammunition purchased by the political subdivision.

(b) Definitions.--As used in this section, the following words and phrases shall have the meanings given to them in this subsection:

"Dealer." The term shall include any person engaged in the business of selling at wholesale or retail a firearm or ammunition.

"Firearms." This term shall have the meaning given to it in section 5515 (relating to prohibiting of paramilitary training) but shall not include air rifles as that term is defined in section 6304 (relating to sale and use of air rifles).

"Political subdivision." The term shall include any home rule charter municipality, county, city, borough, incorporated town, township or school district.

(Oct. 18, 1974, P.L.768, No.260, eff. imd.; Dec. 19, 1988, P.L.1275, No.158, eff. 180 days; Oct. 4, 1994, P.L.571, No.84, eff. 60 days; Dec. 15, 1999, P.L.915, No.59, eff. imd.)

A letter to your township supervisor is in order.

[Greywolf]

I am in the process of trying to get a similar town ordinance repealed right now. Penalty for a violation in my town is a fine of $100 and/or imprisonment for 30 days. And my town doesn't have ANY exception for any sort of self defense carry.

Do I think your town could use that to "harass" you? No ... I think they could use it to arrest you. It is an improper ordinance due to preemption, but it sucks to be the test case who has to take them to court after being charged.

[franklinman]

Greywolf has it about right. The ordinance is clearly in violation of premption, but being the test case might be expensive and time consuming. Some years back I found myself in a similar situation with our township, though not with an ordinance involving firearms. My lawyer suggested two options. First was to just go ahead with our building plans and put the township in the position of charging/prosecuting me for something that they had no authority to do. Then take it to court. Second was to take a proactive stance and notify the authority that their ordinance was basically illegal and that if it wasn't changed we would seek resolution/redress under due process. It came down to my lawyer writing a letter stating our case, and citing the appropriate statutes to the township council, which I personally presented at an open meeting. Surprisingly, most of the residents were unaware of the ordinance's existance, and the overwhelming support resulted in the township abolishing the ordinance. With that said, any firearms issues can be an emotional one, regardless of the law. Depending upon the personal feelings of your local government officers, and the residents of your locale, you may or may not be able to resolve the issue this way. I can only say that it might be a far less expensive, and quicker way to resolve the matter. Good luck. I look forward to hearing how it goes.

[ChamberedRound]

Greywolf has it about right. The ordinance is clearly in violation of premption...

Not entirely true. It's partially in violation of preemption.

The parts regarding possession and carry are clearly in violation of the state's preemption statute. But, the part regarding discharge isn't, as there's nothing in 18 Pa.C.S. § 6120.a that prohibits local legislation against discharge.

Furthermore, the discharge part of the ordinance is actually not too bad, because it makes an exception for use of force to defend "person or property".

The rest, however, is illegal and stinks on ice.

[SamF]

Troubling. Maybe I'll write that letter...