Issues with a rally this coming June in Erie.

[pa350z]

Just read through the entire thread. How this got to this point is depressing on all sides - ours, the City's and the system. I concur with Atty. Kline on his commentary throughout this matter. I am not shocked or surprised with the DJ ruling. That is expected if one knows that part of the system. IMHO, those cited would be best advised to appeal and seek their OWN counsel if they wish to not run the risk of being barred from having a LTCF. Even though a local summary ordinance, this could chill any future purchases, licenses, etc.. when it comes to firearms. I for one would not want this on my record.

[Rblakely]

Just read through the entire thread. How this got to this point is depressing on all sides - ours, the City's and the system. I concur with Atty. Kline on his commentary throughout this matter. I am not shocked or surprised with the DJ ruling. That is expected if one knows that part of the system. IMHO, those cited would be best advised to appeal and seek their OWN counsel if they wish to not run the risk of being barred from having a LTCF. Even though a local summary ordinance, this could chill any future purchases, licenses, etc.. when it comes to firearms. I for one would not want this on my record.

As others have said a challange to this ordinance could / should have been better. A well laid out attack plan with all the legal defense team on the same page could dramatically alter the odds of success. All that being said am I wrong in believing the outcome could impact all of us? Would a loss in the appellate courts embolden other municipalities to create their own preemptive ordinances? If so perhaps we should do more to pull together and see if we can assist in the appellate court effort. No one enjoys cleaning up someone else's mess (if you believe the current legal effort is a mess) but if it could impact all of us it is worth the effort. If, however, the general legal opinion is that a loss of this case in the appellate court has little to no bearing on any other municipality then perhaps we wait to fight another day - when we are better prepared.

[lakota]

You do know that the mayor of Erie is a member of MAIG.

[GunLawyer001]

As others have said a challange to this ordinance could / should have been better. A well laid out attack plan with all the legal defense team on the same page could dramatically alter the odds of success. All that being said am I wrong in believing the outcome could impact all of us? Would a loss in the appellate courts embolden other municipalities to create their own preemptive ordinances? If so perhaps we should do more to pull together and see if we can assist in the appellate court effort. No one enjoys cleaning up someone else's mess (if you believe the current legal effort is a mess) but if it could impact all of us it is worth the effort. If, however, the general legal opinion is that a loss of this case in the appellate court has little to no bearing on any other municipality then perhaps we wait to fight another day - when we are better prepared.

A loss (or 8 losses) in a DJ's court means nothing.

A loss in Common Pleas would encourage wavering municipalities to impose bans and new criminal ordinances, the same way that our win on the guns in school case may have discouraged some prosecutions of LTCF holders who committed no other offense.

A loss in the appellate courts would cement the harm done to gun owners.

[RightRock]

... Would a loss in the appellate courts embolden other municipalities to create their own preemptive ordinances? ...

Other counties already have similar park regulations. After reading some older threads about similar regs in Chester County, I started looking online to find county park regulations for other counties in PA. Of the top 20 counties by population in PA, at least 13 of them either have similar "no firearms in the park" regulation or have vague or contradictory regs about firearms. And that's just the county regs. There no way to even survey all the townships, cities, towns, and boroughs.

This is a question that needs to be answered in the courts at some point. Do municipalities have the right to regulate firearm possession on property 'owned' by the municipality? While I believe the answer is No and definitely hope these guys win on appeal, the question needs to be answered one way or the other. If it's not answered, then we continue to have incidents like the Erie rally.

If it's answered in favor of 2A, then we can start to put pressure on the counties to correct their regs. If it's answered in favor of the antis, then we can start to put pressure on legislators to amend the preemption clause.

Right now, it's just limbo.

Getting off the soapbox now and looking for those 2 pennies I threw out in the crowd

[twency]

Other counties already have similar park regulations. After reading some older threads about similar regs in Chester County, I started looking online to find county park regulations for other counties in PA. Of the top 20 counties by population in PA, at least 13 of them either have similar "no firearms in the park" regulation or have vague or contradictory regs about firearms. And that's just the county regs. There no way to even survey all the townships, cities, towns, and boroughs.

This is a question that needs to be answered in the courts at some point. Do municipalities have the right to regulate firearm possession on property 'owned' by the municipality? While I believe the answer is No and definitely hope these guys win on appeal, the question needs to be answered one way or the other. If it's not answered, then we continue to have incidents like the Erie rally.

If it's answered in favor of 2A, then we can start to put pressure on the counties to correct their regs. If it's answered in favor of the antis, then we can start to put pressure on legislators to amend the preemption clause.

Right now, it's just limbo.

Getting off the soapbox now and looking for those 2 pennies I threw out in the crowd

No need to wait to put pressure. Dauphin County this year changed their unlawful regulation against possession of firearms in a park after (ahem, so I hear) pressure from a vocal resident.

Hard-headed types like the Erie .gov will prolly still require suasion by the courts, but other less-numbskulled governments may be effectively persuaded.

[RightRock]

No need to wait to put pressure. Dauphin County this year changed their unlawful regulation against possession of firearms in a park after (ahem, so I hear) pressure from a vocal resident.

Hard-headed types like the Erie .gov will prolly still require suasion by the courts, but other less-numbskulled governments may be effectively persuaded.

Glad you mentioned that. I had them on my list as having vague regs, but I just checked and they've updated their web site in the last week or so. The new reg is there now and it doesn't have the vague language anymore.

So only 12 more counties to go.

How 'vocal' did you have to be?

[twency]

Glad you mentioned that. I had them on my list as having vague regs, but I just checked and they've updated their web site in the last week or so. The new reg is there now and it doesn't have the vague language anymore.

So only 12 more counties to go.

How 'vocal' did you have to be?

Who said it was me?

A little bird told me that an initial letter sent as ordinary First Class mail to the commissioners (copied to the solicitor) was seemingly ignored, but a followup letter sent Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested (sent to the commissioners as a body with a certified receipted copy to the solicitor) yielded a response to the effect of "were working on it", with the revised reg. finally voted on about 5 months later.

They weren't exactly super quick about it, but they did the right thing after the issue was brought to their attention.

[Klyde]

You do know that the mayor of Erie is a member of MAIG.

He is a MAIG mayor and has publicly defended a decision to belong. He seems to believe it is, actually, about illegal guns.

[BenGlock]

Judges should be on a three strikes rule. If they're overturned by an appellate court three times, they're automatically removed from the bench and disbarred.

While I understand being upset at this horrible decision, I think your comment is misguided. Judges make mistakes. Appellate courts sometimes decide to "change" the law that lower courts properly applied before the appeal. There are a slew of reasons why a judge's decision would be overturned in whole or, more often, in part. In fact, most judges are overturned, at least in part, well more than three times throughout their judicial careers. While I think this judge simply did what he thought was right, however misguided, instead of following the law, a three strikes rule is not the way to go. Other options include filing a judicial misconduct complaint against him, impeachment, or not re-electing him (election of judges is another issue altogether that creates problems of its own). A system such as the one you suggest would undermine the need for an independent judiciary, which is inherent in our three-branch governmental system of checks and balances.