"Roof" Park in Paradise PA in Violation of UFA

[GunLawyer001]

The court ruled that the municipalities cannot make laws affecting hunting. Which already gave the appealing party the win, so they declined to rule on it any further.

The statewide standard is 150yds for firearm hunting and 50yds for archery. The municipalities can enforce those yardage violations, but they cannot increase or decrease the distances.

It doesn't matter whether it is the townships property. The mere fact that they created an ordinance governing hunting is all that matters.

I have not researched this matter.

I'll note this: You don't have the power to modify the game laws, either. Yet you can still post your property "NO HUNTING", can't you?

There really is a difference between a municipality enacting ordinances of general applicability, and a private or public property owner defining the terms of use of owned and managed property. That's one reason why you can't hunt in a municipal zoo, for example.

[bluetick]

Duff v Northampton is a classic preemption case. The case revolved around the township setting a township wide ordinance that enhanced the Title 38 law.

The PA supreme court ruled that they can post and or restrict hunting on land they own (the township). However, they can not restrict or impose other law on the lawful activity of hunting or trapping on private property.

So you example of posting your own land as "No hunting" is totally correct. Anyone can do that, including a local government. The preemption issue arises when a government seeks to impose a jurisdictional, in whole or in part, to their jurisdiction.

Here the court was clear:

- - - - - - - - - - - - End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

To summarize, the basic purpose of the Game Law is to create comprehensive and uniform regulation of hunting throughout the Commonwealth. The legislation does not suggest that it intended to regulate the area of hunting through a patchwork of municipal regulations. The problem of hunting wild game with weapons must be uniform and comprehensive, else chaos, confusion and danger to the public would result. To permit each municipality to enact its own laws and regulations would create a lattice of additional rules as to when and where hunting would be permissible and would be in direct opposition to the legislative mandate. To permit each municipality to pass its own version of the Game Law would prevent the Game Commission from freely utilizing its experienced decision-making powers in determining the appropriate balance between the rights of hunters to hunt, the control of wild game and the safety of the citizens of this Commonwealth.

Order reversed.

Order

And Now, this 15th day of October, 1987, the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County is reversed.


The portion in red is perhaps the most important element of the entire decision.

This is the very same tenet that those seeking to stop before enactment, or later after enactment of local gun control measures in Pennsylvania base their argument and legal challenge on. Settled law. Preemption is not allowed.



Here is a link to duff. finding another copy on the net is tough unless you have access to a legal library online. Really not that long and not that difficult to read once you get by the opening statement.

http://www.huntingpa.com/forums/ubbt...=328441&page=1

[GunLawyer001]

Duff v Northampton is a classic preemption case. The case revolved around the township setting a township wide ordinance that enhanced the Title 38 law.

The PA supreme court ruled that they can post and or restrict hunting on land they own (the township). However, they can not restrict or impose other law on the lawful activity of hunting or trapping on private property.

So you example of posting your own land as "No hunting" is totally correct. Anyone can do that, including a local government. The preemption issue arises when a government seeks to impose a jurisdictional, in whole or in part, to their jurisdiction.

Here the court was clear:

- - - - - - - - - - - - End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

To summarize, the basic purpose of the Game Law is to create comprehensive and uniform regulation of hunting throughout the Commonwealth. The legislation does not suggest that it intended to regulate the area of hunting through a patchwork of municipal regulations. The problem of hunting wild game with weapons must be uniform and comprehensive, else chaos, confusion and danger to the public would result. To permit each municipality to enact its own laws and regulations would create a lattice of additional rules as to when and where hunting would be permissible and would be in direct opposition to the legislative mandate. To permit each municipality to pass its own version of the Game Law would prevent the Game Commission from freely utilizing its experienced decision-making powers in determining the appropriate balance between the rights of hunters to hunt, the control of wild game and the safety of the citizens of this Commonwealth.

Order reversed.

Order

And Now, this 15th day of October, 1987, the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County is reversed.


The portion in red is perhaps the most important element of the entire decision.

This is the very same tenet that those seeking to stop before enactment, or later after enactment of local gun control measures in Pennsylvania base their argument and legal challenge on. Settled law. Preemption is not allowed.



Here is a link to duff. finding another copy on the net is tough unless you have access to a legal library online. Really not that long and not that difficult to read once you get by the opening statement.

http://www.huntingpa.com/forums/ubbt...=328441&page=1

I agree, local governments SHOULD be barred from any legislation that restricts firearms possession and imposes criminal sanctions for new summary violations. Preemption must mean that much, regardless of the interpretation of the phrase "No county, municipality or township may in any manner regulate . . . ".

So people cited for possession of firearms under local ordinances should be able to beat those, unless someone screws up or the case of first impression hits an unfriendly jurisdiction.

But the question of municipal parks and buildings having non-ordinance "policies" could go either way. I'd like to see the last of the "NO GUNS" signs go away, but the worst penalty for open carry in such a venue that I think could be supported by the UFA, would be that an agent of the owner would have to ask you to leave, and if you leave then that should be it.

At best, if this issue is litigated and we succeed, we get pretty much the same result as we've seen so far, where municipal solicitors review the statute and agree to end the discriminatory signs. At worst, the court nails down an opinion that "policies" are not preempted, and all those signs go right back up.