Issues with a rally this coming June in Erie.

[Connal]

Well, the way it appears is if Erie is able to get away with violating preemption every little town council through out the state that has an anti gun agenda is going to pass these laws and tell gun owners to stick it. In the meantime if we catch you in our park with a gun we'll arrest you just like they did in Erie and have our Magistrate find you guilty just like they did in Erie.

When I believe something needs to be done I put my money where my mouth is.

Long and short of it. The reason nothing could be done sooner, is they hadn't tried to enforce it. Now, not only have they not enforced it. They were caught on camera refusing to identify themselves (the police). It was a given that it would need to be appealed. The court system in Erie is screwed up as it is. It needs to be done on the state level.

This is just my understanding. And I am only getting it second hand.

[internet troll]

I think it's too early to get upset about this because of the possible negative consequences. There are steps that still need to be walked, but as long as the people involved are committed to the journey I will still support the people involved. Hopefully it will end the way they envisioned with the result of a definitive ruling that municipalities etc.... setting their own rules like this are a violation of Pa state law once and for all and they will be forced to follow state law.

If it does get that far and the ruling comes down against them they may well become some of the most maligned gun owners in Pa history by other gun owners though.

As Gunlawyer001 has pointed out, a loss could hurt our cause and this could be another case of "seizing defeat from the jaws of victory" where we currently have something as gun owners (preemption) that might be interpreted differently and more negatively by other municipalities in the future. Turning on the people involved will not help though. Discouraging them from the course they are on is not going to make things better as far as I can see. They are on a course where we need them to win, and if they do win we all benefit. And part of a win will require our support.

I imagine that a lot of people may be against the current group because of the way they went about things they've managed to back carriers into a corner. It is now easy to criticize them which is fine and I can understand. But choosing not to support them because we don't like the way thing went down or the way things are going is basically cutting off our nose to spite our face at this point. (I have a feeling I am going to be using this phrase a lot around election time over the next couple of years) Something that we can not afford to do.

And to summarize......

Erie was in the wrong as far as I can see with their ordinance

If they did not do what they did and did not get charged, there would be nothing to force them to change the ordinance. (If I am wrong about this, pleas correct me, I don't have time right now to search through the thread/laws to doublecheck that this assertion is accurate, it is just what I think)

If they lose now it could hurt all of Pa carriers.

Could thing be handled differently....... probably yes.

But

We do need to win this.

Winning will take support, not discouraging the participants to the point where they choose not to follow things through to the conclusion.

With things like Colorado and Illinois going in our favor, we cannot sit back and let Pa be a victory for anti 2nd Amendment forces.

[God's Country]

I think it's too early to get upset about this because of the possible negative consequences. There are steps that still need to be walked, but as long as the people involved are committed to the journey I will still support the people involved. Hopefully it will end the way they envisioned with the result of a definitive ruling that municipalities etc.... setting their own rules like this are a violation of Pa state law once and for all and they will be forced to follow that rule.

If it does get that far and the ruling comes down against them they may well become some of the most maligned gun owners in Pa history by other gun owners though.

As Gunlawyer001 has pointed out, a loss could hurt our cause and this could be another case of "seizing defeat from the jaws of victory" where we currently have something as gun owners (preemption) that might be interpreted differently and more negatively by other municipalities in the future. Turning on the people involved will not help though. Discouraging them from the course they are on is not going to make things better as far as I can see. They are on a course where we need them to win, and if they do win we all benefit. And part of a win will require our support.

I imagine that a lot of people may be against the current group because of the way they went about things they've managed to back carriers into a corner. It is now easy to criticize them which is fine and I can understand. But choosing not to support them because we don't like the way thing went down or the way things are going is basically cutting off our nose to spite our face at this point. (I have a feeling I am going to be using this phrase a lot around election time over the next couple of years) Something that we can not afford to do.

And to summarize......

Erie was in the wrong as far as I can see with their ordinance

If they did not do what they did and did not get charged, there would be nothing to force them to change the ordinance. (If I am wrong about this, pleas correct me, I don't have time right now to search through the thread/laws to doublecheck that this assertion is accurate, it is just what I think)

If they lose now it could hurt all of Pa carriers.

Could thing be handled differently....... probably yes.

But

We do need to win this.

Winning will take support not discouraging the participants to the point where they choose not to follow things through to the conclusion.

With things like Colorado and Illinois going in our favor, we cannot sit back and let Pa be a victory for anti 2nd Amendment forces.

I agree.
There have been a couple incidents over the years that a lot of members no doubt disagreed with, but were lawful and worthy of support regardless.
As a firearm community we own the result for better or worse, so doesn't it make sense to do what ever any of us can to achieve a favorable result?

[Gun]

And to summarize......

Erie was in the wrong as far as I can see with their ordinance

The ordinance is listed under Recreational Activities (955.06) (b) Hunting and Firearms. It is reasonable to assume that the city of Erie does not want hunting, as a recreational activity, done in the listed parks. That seems fair enough considering where the parks are located. Hunting does not apply in this case (concerning the rally), mainly because semi-auto firearms (if carried) are not allowed for hunting, and the participants were not shown to be hunting.

This ordinance is being read as two separate actions, one for hunting, and the other for firearms, which is apparent since citations were issued (but not for hunting). If merely carrying firearms was a danger to wildlife and humans, then carrying firearms would be prohibited on all public property in the city of Erie.

The argument that this ordinance does not apply to what occurred is that what is not allowed in the listed parks (hunting) requires the actor to be an active participant in the activity of hunting, yet no hunting occurred.

It will be interesting to see how this is argued at the higher levels.

[internet troll]

The ordinance is listed under Recreational Activities (955.06) (b) Hunting and Firearms. It is reasonable to assume that the city of Erie does not want hunting, as a recreational activity, done in the listed parks. That seems fair enough considering where the parks are located. Hunting does not apply in this case (concerning the rally), mainly because semi-auto firearms (if carried) are not allowed for hunting, and the participants were not shown to be hunting.

This ordinance is being read as two separate actions, one for hunting, and the other for firearms, which is apparent since citations were issued (but not for hunting). If merely carrying firearms was a danger to wildlife and humans, then carrying firearms would be prohibited on all public property in the city of Erie.

The argument that this ordinance does not apply to what occurred is that what is not allowed in the listed parks (hunting) requires the actor to be an active participant in the activity of hunting, yet no hunting occurred.

It will be interesting to see how this is argued at the higher levels.

Thanks for the clarification/information, i should say they are in the wrong for the way they are interpreting and enforcing/ implementing the law is wrong.

[GrumpyBear]

[QUOTE=God's Country;2508917]I agree.
There have been a couple incidents over the years that a lot of members no doubt disagreed with, but were lawful and worthy of support regardless.
As a firearm community we own the result for better or worse, so doesn't it make sense to do what ever any of us can to achieve a favorable result?[/QUOTE]

^^^ IN RED !

I completely agree with this.

As said back in constituitional days,(paraphrase),we can all stick together or all hang together.

[mingomom]

I agree.
There have been a couple incidents over the years that a lot of members no doubt disagreed with, but were lawful and worthy of support regardless.
As a firearm community we own the result for better or worse, so doesn't it make sense to do what ever any of us can to achieve a favorable result?

^^^ IN RED !

I completely agree with this.

As said back in constitutional days,(paraphrase),we can all stick together or all hang together.

I don't have anything against the individuals in question, and I truly wish them well. But doesn't each individual also own the responsibility for their own actions? Many of us thought this wasn't the time to take this action as there was not a serious and prepared strategy. There is considerable acceptance by many here that a failure at the end of this process could be more problematic for the group at large. You can't blindly move forward and then expect the group to bail you out. You also can't ask for money without at least a semblance of organization, accountability, and communication - all of which are seriously lacking.

[GrumpyBear]

I don't have anything against the individuals in question, and I truly wish them well. But doesn't each individual also own the responsibility for their own actions? Many of us thought this wasn't the time to take this action as there was not a serious and prepared strategy. There is considerable acceptance by many here that a failure at the end of this process could be more problematic for the group at large. You can't blindly move forward and then expect the group to bail you out. You also can't ask for money without at least a semblance of organization, accountability, and communication - all of which are seriously lacking.

^^ In red. Answer Certainly each of us as individuals are responsible for our own actions.

But once actions have been taken that could have an effect on all of our rights,isn't in all of our best interests to try to steer the outcome to a decision that would be in our favor if at all possible ?

[JenniferG]

I've ponied up because a loss will affect every single one of us here no matter how it got started. If preemption means just that, preemption , then of course those people were right to challenge Erie just as we were right to challenge Morrisville, Philadelphia and all the other locations we've held our rallies this past year.

I watched them make their case before Erie's City Council on You Tube and I find nothing unreasonable or objectionable about these people. As a matter of fact they presented a well reasoned case why they have the right to carry in the Erie Parks and Erie is violating State preemption. I've never been to Erie and I wouldn't know any of these people from Adam but I recognize quite clearly the predicament they have found themselves in, standing up for our rights!

[Gun]

As said back in constituitional days,(paraphrase),we can all hang together or all hang separately.

But once actions have been taken that could have an effect on all of our rights,isn't in all of our best interests to try to steer the outcome to a decision that would be in our favor if at all possible ?

There is no steering after an action is committed. Lawyers will present arguments, judges render decisions, and going to an appellate court won't guarantee a decision in your favor.