Issues with a rally this coming June in Erie.

[ROCK-IT3]

He knows he won't win this one, either!

Open Carry PA supporters are waiting for a decision from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court regarding a gun ordinance in city parks. Meanwhile, the City of Erie makes a legal move today. City Solicitor Greg Karle filed a motion to dismiss today, hoping the city ordinance banning firearms in parks will stand. Justin Dillon is a gun rights activist and has a case pending against the City of Erie. It has gone all the way to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. If the PA Supreme Court sides with Dillon, the ordinances will not be able to be enforced. This comes on the heels of an Open Carry PA rally in Perry Square last Saturday, June 22nd in which some participants carried guns and defied the city ordinance. Erie City Solicitor Greg Karle had to file a response to the case Friday, fulfilling the State Supreme Court's order and asked the court to dismiss the petition. The dismissal didn't happen. Late Friday afternoon, Justin Dillon's attorney, Joshua Prince said the State Supreme Court received a motion from Dillon to continue the process, and now the court has issued an order directing the city to file another answer by July 5th. This is for injunctive relief, just one small part of a larger case. Dillon's ultimate goal is to have the ordinance ruled unconstitutional. Other groups such as the GOA (Gun Owners of America) and the NRA (National Rifle Association) are looking into the issue to make sure that their constitutional rights are not taken away. The Erie Police Department is still working to identify those who were carrying firearms at the June 22nd Perry Square Rally, citations could be issued at a later date.

Love the bolded part. They could have identified everyone carrying a firearm at the rally by citing them there, if they had the stones.

[gnbrotz]

Love the bolded part. They could have identified everyone carrying a firearm at the rally by citing them there, if they had the stones.

How so? Everyone chose to not identify themselves.

[internet troll]

Love the bolded part. They could have identified everyone carrying a firearm at the rally by citing them there, if they had the stones.

Nothing like wasting man hours to try and identify people. I am sure they have nothing better to do with their time.

[twency]

Love the bolded part. They could have identified everyone carrying a firearm at the rally by citing them there, if they had the stones.

How so? Everyone chose to not identify themselves.

I certainly could be wrong, but my understanding is that if the police wanted to cite someone and that person declined to provide proof of ID, that person could/would instead be arrested.

A citation is just a "nicer" alternative to an arrest, if the police choose to use it.

(Someone please chime in if I've got that wrong.)

[Connal]

Short little update.

Legal funds are running low. But everyone I have talked to, for some reason, has not received any citations.

As for the city's response to the SC, no word on that yet.

Please, keep your fingers crossed for us. This could be a huge victory for us, and we are looking into more funding.

[Deleted]

Is issuing a citation, the same as commencing prosecution?

No... it isn't the same. A summary citation must be issued within 30 days of discovery. So that's within 30 days of the offence or 30 days upon discovery of the offence or identity of the actor.

[Deleted]

I certainly could be wrong, but my understanding is that if the police wanted to cite someone and that person declined to provide proof of ID, that person could/would instead be arrested.

A citation is just a "nicer" alternative to an arrest, if the police choose to use it.

(Someone please chime in if I've got that wrong.)

The citation deals with the type of violation... a summary offence. If you refused to provide ID you would be taken "forthwith" to the magistrate for bond posting and/or commitment.

[Deleted]

This is so sad.... I didn't really take a look at this thread till just now. I don't know the preemption case law but to get anything "settled" for the greater good, someone needs to get cited and fight it up the courts.

WTF is Erie thinking...wow.

[FlcnDawg]

This is so sad.... I didn't really take a look at this thread till just now. I don't know the preemption case law but to get anything "settled" for the greater good, someone needs to get cited and fight it up the courts.

WTF is Erie thinking...wow.

Well there is the first mistake thinking that the local government is thinking. Stop that their only concerned with drinking from Obozo's tit, and sucking on his... well you get the point.

[Gun]

This is so sad.... I didn't really take a look at this thread till just now. I don't know the preemption case law but to get anything "settled" for the greater good, someone needs to get cited and fight it up the courts.

WTF is Erie thinking...wow.

The code deals with "Hunting and Firearms", which goes hand in hand along with the other instruments used for hunting as outlined in the code, though paintball weapons are listed as well. This seems reasonable as there is no park in the city with enough land to allow hunting of any type.

The interpretation of the code by the city solicitor is narrowed on the "No person shall use, carry or possess firearms of any descriptions, ... potentially inimical to wild life and dangerous to human safety, ...".