Haverford Twp: "If you don't have a rifle, you can't defend yourself."

[ChemicalReaper]

§ 83-12:

"The provisions of this article shall not apply to the discharge of rifles in the defense of person or property, or by the members of duly organized gun or rifle clubs or their bona fide guests or by the members of military organizations upon the ranges of such clubs or organizations under the control and supervision of the duly constituted officers of such clubs or organizations, or by the patrons of commercial ranges."

Wait, wait... so I can't use a handgun to defend my property? Or a shotgun?

§ 83-2:

"Any person found guilty of violating any of the terms of this article shall be subject to a fine of not more than $600 and costs for each violation and, on default in the payment thereof, shall be subject to imprisonment for a period not exceeding 30 days."

§ 83-10:

"Whoever discharges a rifle, an air rifle or air gun of any description which impels with force a metal pellet of any kind within the Township of Haverford shall, upon conviction thereof in a summary proceeding, be sentenced to pay a fine not exceeding $1,000 and, in default of the payment of such fine and costs, shall be sentenced to imprisonment in the county jail for not exceeding 30 days."

Disturbingly, § 83-13 also establishes that the Chief of Police is allowed to seize and destroy ANY rifle, BB gun, pellet rifle, air rifle, or air pistol that is used or discharged within the township.

"What gun confiscation?"

[internet troll]

I'm not reading that as you can only defend yourself with rifle and handguns/ shotguns aren't allowed. I read that as when it is okay to use a rifle in Haverford. I don't see why that would imply you can't defend yourself with a handgun.

[jlb0305]

Agree with troll. Many townships in Delco have similar provisions to ban people using their own land as a target range.

Concord Township says that you need a permit from them with proof that you have enough space on either side and behind and an NRA approved backstop and i think something like nothing larger than .22 being fired. Any other firearm discharge other than self defense has similar consequences to those the OP listed.

[ChamberedRound]

It's very likely there's a blanket prohibition on firearms discharge, and then a list of exceptions to the blanket prohibition, of which defense of life and property is one. So the ordinance's (or article in this case) plain English meaning probably reads like this:

"Discharge of firearms is prohibited, except when in defense of life and property, at a gun club, etc."

[ChemicalReaper]

Chambered: the only listed exception is the one I mentioned. If the law wasn't meant to be read as "rifles are the only weapon you can discharge in self-defense," why would it be written so specifically?

Edit:
For some reason, although it shows up in the edit it didn't refresh the forum post: but §83-1 states that no firearm is to be discharged except under the exceptions listed in §83-12.

Edit 2:
§ 83-1:

"It shall be unlawful for any person within the Township to shoot or discharge, or cause to be discharged, a rifle, shotgun or pistol, except as permitted by the Pennsylvania Game and Wildlife Code and § 83-12 of this chapter. Hunting of game or wildlife shall be prohibited upon all properties owned by the Township of Haverford."

[ChamberedRound]

Chambered: the only listed exception is the one I mentioned. If the law wasn't meant to be read as "rifles are the only weapon you can discharge in self-defense," why would it be written so specifically?

Edit:
For some reason, although it shows up in the edit it didn't refresh the forum post: but §83-1 states that no firearm is to be discharged except under the exceptions listed in §83-12.

Edit 2:
§ 83-1:

"It shall be unlawful for any person within the Township to shoot or discharge, or cause to be discharged, a rifle, shotgun or pistol, except as permitted by the Pennsylvania Game and Wildlife Code and § 83-12 of this chapter. Hunting of game or wildlife shall be prohibited upon all properties owned by the Township of Haverford."

reaper,

Sorry, I missed that you were questioning rifles vs handguns.

I am surprised that the discharge exception lists rifles only. However, the blanket prohibition you listed also DOESN'T list handguns, so are they even considered banned in the first place? Dunno. I also think the ability of a Police Chief to confiscate a weapon under these terms is questionable, and could constitute a 4th Amendment violation.

In general, it looks like Haverford is paying their solicitor FAR too much money/ These ordinances look poorly written and questionably legal given the state laws, state constitution, and federal Constitution with which they must coexist.

[ChemicalReaper]

reaper,

Sorry, I missed that you were questioning rifles vs handguns.

I am surprised that the discharge exception lists rifles only. However, the blanket prohibition you listed also DOESN'T list handguns, so are they even considered banned in the first place? Dunno. I also think the ability of a Police Chief to confiscate a weapon under these terms is questionable, and could constitute a 4th Amendment violation.

In general, it looks like Haverford is paying their solicitor FAR too much money/ These ordinances look poorly written and questionably legal given the state laws, state constitution, and federal Constitution with which they must coexist.

No worries about the misinterpretation - going back, I realize my first post perhaps wasn't as clear as it could have been.

Anyway, this is also interesting:
§ 126-3:
"I. No person shall carry or use firearms or throw stones or other missiles or leave dead animals or offensive matter of any kind in a park."

^ That's a preemption violation for 18 Pa.C.S § 6120.

[ChamberedRound]

No worries about the misinterpretation - going back, I realize my first post perhaps wasn't as clear as it could have been.

Anyway, this is also interesting:
§ 126-3:
"I. No person shall carry or use firearms or throw stones or other missiles or leave dead animals or offensive matter of any kind in a park."

^ That's a preemption violation for 18 Pa.C.S § 6120.

There's LOTS of towns, cities, municipalities, etc. all throughout the state that have preemption ordinance violations. Most of them are holdovers from before preemption was passed in 1995, and a few (like Philly) are new and they're just flipping the bird at preemption. Now TECHNICALLY, these laws are null and void because of preemption. But, that won't stop these towns from trying to arrest and prosecute people, causing law-abiding citizens to spend thousands of dollars to prove their innocence against a law that null and void.

This is why we're pushing HB2011 (see the banner above) as a way to try and hold responsible local governments and their officials to get their ordinances in complilance.

[90volts]

It's very likely there's a blanket prohibition on firearms discharge, and then a list of exceptions to the blanket prohibition, of which defense of life and property is one. So the ordinance's (or article in this case) plain English meaning probably reads like this:

"Discharge of firearms is prohibited, except when in defense of life and property, at a gun club, etc."

So why can't they just write it in plain English then? Would make things so much easier for us regular folk. Not to mention the side benefit of most of the need for lawyers.

[ChemicalReaper]

I've written and printed a letter to the township; I'll be putting it in the post tomorrow.

April 11, 2014

Board of Commissioners
Haverford Township
2325 Darby Road
Havertown, PA 19083

Members of the Board of Commissioners:

I am writing to bring to your attention an ordinance of the Township relating to parks and recreation. The ordinance appears to be in violation of State law.

The ordinance in question is § 126-3(i) of the Haverford Township Code, which states:

"No person shall carry or use firearms or throw stones or other missiles or leave dead animals or offensive matter of any kind in a park."

It is my belief that the ordinance, which prohibits carrying and use of firearms in public parks, stands in violation of 18 Pa.C.S. § 6120(a):

"No county, municipality or township may in any manner regulate the lawful ownership, possession, transfer or transportation of firearms, ammunition or ammunition components when carried or transported for purposes not prohibited by the laws of this Commonwealth."

The preemption statute in Title 18, Chapter 61(A) of the Pa. Cons. Stat.—the Uniform Firearms Act (UFA)—was passed in 1995. It does not appear that § 126-3(i) of the Township Code has been updated or amended since Ord. No. 704 was originally passed in November 1944: I understand that the removal of the law from the Code may have been overlooked at the time of the UFA's enactment. However, preexisting limitations were not grandfathered under the statute; thus, Haverford Township Code Chapter 126, Article 1, Section 3(i) is both improper and unenforceable under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

I respectfully request that the Haverford Township Board of Commissioners look into this, and that I am notified when the matter has been resolved.

Respectfully submitted,
[ChemicalReaper]

CC: Haverford Township Dept. of Parks & Recreation