Issues with a rally this coming June in Erie.

[Carnes]

The court stopped the use of purely governmental power to ban guns, but gave the green light to using the same power that WalMart has to ban guns on its owned or managed properties.

It appears that loophole number nine has exposed a signifcant failure of the legislature to effectively represent our interests. Loophole number nine was bound to come up at some time or another. Now that it is here, citizens have a target to confront. We should have fixed tbis before, and now we have to fix it.

Folks talk to their representatives... How else can someone represent you if you don't talk to them?

Politics is war by other means. If you hold some grand illusion that you will, or need to, win every battle, you are very short sighted. We won't win every fight, but a loss represents a time to stand up, do the right thing, and move forward.

[GunLawyer001]

I thought I'd OC - on school grounds - in defiance of signs and then hire Prince Law to defend me BUT wait until I got arrested to do any planning.

Just want to see if I can make GunLaywer's head explode

I think we'd all enjoy seeing a Lawyer Head Pinata (well, maybe I wouldn't...), but you forgot to mention that you'd demand that the entire community support whatever you did without being judgmental, and then base your entire defense on repeatedly chanting the words "shall not be infringed" until the judge orders the bailiff to gag you with duct tape.

On another note, there's only one lawyer in Pennsylvania who's obtained an acquittal in a "gun in school zone" case. You might want to hire that guy.

[streaker69]

I think we'd all enjoy seeing a Lawyer Head Pinata (well, maybe I wouldn't...), but you forgot to mention that you'd demand that the entire community support whatever you did without being judgmental, and then base your entire defense on repeatedly chanting the words "shall not be infringed" until the judge orders the bailiff to gag you with duct tape.

On another note, there's only one lawyer in Pennsylvania who's obtained an acquittal in a "gun in school zone" case. You might want to hire that guy.

Too bad that attorney didn't lose the first two rounds so it could have been appealed and gotten a SC decision on "lawful porpoises".

[Rblakely]

On another note, there's only one lawyer in Pennsylvania who's obtained an acquittal in a "gun in school zone" case. You might want to hire that guy.

Never read about it in a blog post so it didn't happen

[libertyof76]

Your ignorance is appalling. You have no idea what improvements have been achieved in the UFA, thanks to the adults who work quietly behind the scenes, who don't stamp their feet and throw tantrums in the name of "doing something".

Before you dismiss the legislative fix, please tell us about your 3 favorite amendments to the UFA in the last 20 years. Surely you're aware of the work that's been done, otherwise you wouldn't risk embarrassing yourself on a public forum by assuming that if you're unaware of something then it must not exist. Right?

Your reading comprehension is appalling. I want a legislative fix- that would be great. I'm happy with the UFA and all the fixes done so far. But those are PAST legislatures. Where is the fix for the non-registry registry? For the terrible transportation laws we have? Or for the problem that you've known about for a decade with pre-emption? Or the problem with the AG and reciprocity?

My point is that our legislature is lazy. What did they do last year? A transportation bill is all I can remember. And as other states were loosing their gun laws, we got nothing. I'm not going to count on the GA to fix this. And if it takes ruling to make them wake up, I'm okay with that.

You may also be unaware that Philadelphia has been similarly slapped down for preempted criminal ordinances, and it hasn't stopped them from enacting new ones. The notion that a court telling a municipality that it can't do something that's already preempted, that they knew the first time was preempted, will stop them from doing again what they shouldn't have done the first time, is charmingly naive. It's no basis for fighting for our rights.

Well its the system we have, and its one avenue for fighting for our rights.

And if you don't understand how Footnote 9 is a devastating loss to our side, then you should probably sit quietly, watch the adults, and learn how things work.

Thank you for the personal insult- is that all you have? No actual arguments then? Because footnote 9 is CLEARLY not devastating to our side. It hasn't been tested in court. It wasn't even in the actual decision- just a footnote.

Before this ruling, we had the ability to bluff town solicitors into removing the park signs, because nobody was really sure about the non-penal policies. Try it now. Because THAT is what we lost.

And if they called our bluff? What would we do? Nothing? Now we have a ruling saying they can't do it. And there is STILL uncertainty around non-penal policies. We can still bluff. We can still use the power of outrage.

So we lost nothing, and won something.

[libertyof76]

No. The real reality is that this case meant a lot, and it was bad. How long until Philly starts posting signs at all of its parks and public spaces due to footnote 9? And then how long until one of us unknowingly (or knowingly) wanders into one of these parks and has to waste thousands fighting the criminal charge (criminal trespass due to disobeying the sign, which as has been pointed out, may be a possibility), all with a higher-probability than before of losing due to footnote 9, which as GL pointed out, CAN affect a trial?

Well it was an even bigger problem when there was ACTUAL criminal penalties, and ACTUAL criminal cases. Now we have a POSSIBILITY of non-penal penalties, and an even small possibility of penal ones.

We won, because they can no longer punish us criminally. How is that not a win? And if they try the non-penal, they we fight that too, in the courts and in the legislature.

This was a huge loss for the PA gun community as a whole. This case cost us a lot. The solidarity amongst the community should have been expressed through trust placed in the opinions of those who warned of these possible consequences years ago. But no, it was scoffed off or ignored, and here we are.

This case put us behind. That's really the end of the story.

This was only a huge loss for those who want to feel high and mighty and be an expert. Sorry, we all have our own opinions. I see no loss here. I see a clear win. Criminal penalties are off the table.

[GunLawyer001]

. . .
We won, because they can no longer punish us criminally. How is that not a win? And if they try the non-penal, they we fight that too, in the courts and in the legislature. . . ..

I will pit my legal expertise against yours, any day. Because I can see that before this Erie clusterfuck, we had a statute that clearly prohibited penal sanctions, and could be read to prohibit owner policies.

Now, we have the same statute clearly prohibiting penal sanctions, an opinion from a court saying that yes, it prohibits them like it says, but the same court also telegraphing that they could probably get away with banning guns as a perk of property ownership.

That's less than we had before. Sorry to interrupt the cheerleading, but that's just a fact.

For anyone familiar with how appellate courts work, they sometimes telegraph their views on related issues, via footnotes and other dicta. It happened even at the USSC level, prior to Roe v Wade and other seminal turning points. Burying your head in the sand and high-fiving each other over your tremendous "victory" notwithstanding.

[Rblakely]

[DreadPirateMoyer]

Sorry, we all have our own opinions. I see no loss here. I see a clear win. Criminal penalties are off the table.

And some opinions are wrong. Criminal penalties at the court level were always off the table, even before this case. Now, after this case, a loophole has been broadcast to the world that can lead to criminal trespassing charges.

We didn't win anything as a movement here. We only had one thing reaffirmed that we all already knew, and had a worst-case-scenario that has been talked about on here since 2006 broadcast for all appellate-level courts and ne'er-do-well municipalities to see.

Some "clear win" you have here.

[internet troll]