Preemption violation: Hazle TWP park, (Hazleton/Harleigh, PA)

[schr8er2000]

BUMP................

[gnbrotz]

Made sticky until next meeting.

[shefearsnothing]

You know, I am only about 80 miles from Hazelton. I don't know what that translates to time-wise...guess it depends on who is driving. If the meeting is during a time I can get away I will gladly attend whatever is happening next. You might have to PM me a reminder though.....

Oh I just saw the august 1th thing. So far there is nothing on our calendar but my husband will likely have to work his PT job on a Monday night. We shall see..... I am assuming everyone will OC? I don't know where these meetings are held so what is the protocol for that?

[gnbrotz]

..... I am assuming everyone will OC? I don't know where these meetings are held so what is the protocol for that?

As always, carry how you are comfortable (including no carry). The building the meeting is held has no legal barriers to carry in any form. Attendees of last month's meeting did indeed OC.

[andrewjs18]

I've been scanning local parks to give Greg and Rich a hand because they alone cannot do EVERYTHING so we all really need to step up and lend a hand...Greg and Rich are both nice people who are willing to help, but we need to give back too and help the gun community more and make it more enjoyable for everyone and ourselves....


anyhow, I found 1 park out of 8 parks near me with the NO FIREARMS in park rule, but I haven't verified whether or not the park is public or private, which I'm going to do tomorrow afternoon as well as taking photos of the sign itself....

I'll keep everyone posted.

[gnbrotz]

Please keep discussions of other preemption violations in their own thread, and keep the conversation here on the situation in Hazle Twp.

Also, don't forget to mention any new violations you may find over here once the applicable details have been determined.

[ChamberedRound]

Been on vacation, so just catching up on mt site reading, and I saw this thread.

First off guys, bravo to all of you. What your doing is a prime example of civic duty and responsibility, and how citizens are supposed to behave in a representative form of government like our Republic. If we don't work to keep our elected officials honest, they WILL abuse the power given to them; it's a maxim of human nature.

I have a comment in regards to something that was brought up in the town meeting. It's my hope that my comments will be taken not as
"Monday Morning Quarterbacking" or a criticism of what took place, but rather as a suggestion for those who in the future may wish to do the same in other municipalities. In regard to the following:

Supervisor Anthony "Midge" Matz asked Schroeder if he truly felt a need to carry a firearm in the community park.

"Yes, I do, sir," Schroeder said. "I carry 24/7 if possible. For peace of mind for my wife; for peace of mind for myself."

Matz said he is not opposed to a citizen’s right to bear arms, but feels it is neither necessary nor appropriate for anyone to carry a firearm in the community park.

"I would hate to see anyone out there (at the park) with a firearm. We just had our ‘Day at the Park’ (a community recreation event) on Saturday. There were thousands of people there and there were no incidents," Matz said.

IMHO questions and comments like the above made by the board are a diversionary tactic. They are attempting to deflect by refocusing the discussion on the issue of guns and concealed carry rather than the REAL topic, which is purely a legal one.

If I were asked such a question, my answer would be, "If you'd like to discuss my personal lawful behaviors and attitudes with respect to weapons, I would love to do so after the meeting. For now, I'd like to keep the discussion on-topic. It doesn't matter whether we're talking about guns, hammers, or foam-rubber toys. The issue at hand isn't that the ordinance is gun-related, the issue at hand is that the township has an ordinance on the books which is in direct conflict with state law. That's a problem regardless of what the ordinance entails. Given such a situation exists, I request that the ordinances in question be reviewed by the township Solicitor and be removed, or rewritten to be in compliance with the state law."

IMHO it's not our responsibility or obligation to answer such questions about our desire to carry. Aside from deflecting the real issue, those board members that ask are only doing so because they want to paint gun-owners in the typical, "gun toting wacko, gun-nut" light, which has NOTHING to do with the issue at hand.

Hope my comments make sense and are helpful.

[Pyrotek85]

It's a typical strawman tactic. It's easier for them to appeal to emotions that guns are dangerous/scary/bad/etc than to argue that the law isn't in violation of state preemption.

[Pa. Patriot]

I've been pretty busy last couple weeks. So far, I am planning on going to the 11th meeting also.

[Statkowski]

The issue at hand isn't that the ordinance is gun-related, the issue at hand is that the township has an ordinance on the books which is in direct conflict with state law. That's a problem regardless of what the ordinance entails. Given such a situation exists, I request that the ordinances in question be reviewed by the township Solicitor and be removed, or rewritten to be in compliance with the state law.

That says it all.