So if a park is not a STATE PARK....

[gnbrotz]

so what you all are saying, regardless of the sign, i can carry, OC or CC, and i won't be breaking the law?

Technically you'll be breaking a local law (probably an ordinance) which is superseded and rendered null by state law. Depending on the officer you encounter, you may be cited, at which point you would mount a challenge based upon the state's preemption statute.

[Statkowski]

this is the sign in McDade park, a Lackawanna county park:

When nobody is looking, masking tape and black spray paint works fine.

I've already written to my County Commissioners, with an info letter to the Parks Department head, reminding them of the law (Section 6120(a)). No response yet, but they know who I am.

[WhiteFeather]

Whitefeather...I'm open to suggestions.... I'm pretty sure if I just call them up and tell them they aren't going to give a shit.

Here is a basic outline of what you should do.

Get the state law as already posted, plus do some more research so you personally know the subject very well, don’t go off half cocked, wait till you are ready.

IF there are any public meetings held by the controlling elected body that has jurisdiction over the park. Go attend the meeting, bring it up under new business. Give highlighted copies all board members of existing state law that their ordinance is in violation. Explain the state law and why there current ordinance is in violation, how it MAY” cost them and the tax payers in a law suit in which they are not going to win. Have a prewritten replacement ordinance that would make them in compliance with state law.

Something along the lines with what they already have written, with a EXCEPTION with such wording as quoting ” there is nothing in the ordinance preventing law abiding citizens from exercising there rights under PA law sections ( ) on the carrying of firearms contrary to state law”. Here is where you research comes into play with the writing of the actual language of the exception.

In the event they don’t want to change their ordinance to comply with state law. What you are trying to do is make a physical paper trail that goes on the public record, that they can not ignore forever. It also would come in real handy for any court challenge for anyone, especially you if you are charged with a violation.

You also could just do the same basic thing by sending registered letters to the same controling board with the violation of state law with your suggested code changes. Note its easier to ignore a just a letter, than a person in a meeting(s) bringing it to public attention. Also would be in your best interest to bring some local club guns people to help out getting them to change their minds.

Now before you say this is too much work, aaah screw it, It’s someone else problem, they won’t change their minds etc or another defeatist comment to talk yourself out of doing something to directly protect your rights.

How do you know they won’t change the ordinance unless you try?

Here is a PAFOA post dealing with it specifically, so good tips to start with here.
http://www.pafoa.org/forum/question-...-ordnance.html

We have our rights and freedom that we now enjoy because someone stepped up in the past to fight to have them now, they are currently being taken away a small slice at time because no one steps up to oppose their creation when proposed.

When you say you can’t change or repeal a law, how many years did it take for the motorcyclist in PA to get the helmet law changed? Very few spent years educating legislators and lobbying, that most now enjoy the freedoms that other fought for. It would have been much easier for someone to oppose this law when enacted but NO ONE DID. So its always harder to change something existing BUT its not impossible.

Freedom is NOT free.

[GunLawyer001]

The sign is not "null and void", it's just unsettled in the courts whether you can be successfully prosecuted.

Our argument is that any restriction on gun carry by any local governmental entity anywhere in PA will count as "regulation" that is proscribed by the UFA, so your local government can't legally prevent you from carrying on their streets, sidewalks, malls, or property owned by the government.

Their argument is that if WalMart can legally post signs and prevent you from carrying on WalMart property, and if this can't be "regulation" because WalMart is not a government, just a land owner, and if land owners have always been able to set rules and conditions for the use of their property, even where that property is open to the public, then where the same rule is promulgated by WalMart and by Lower Whatsis Township for property they each own, then one can't be "regulation" if the other isn't.

Sure, if Lower Whatsis codifies it as a statute, grades it as a summary or a misdemeanor, then that codification is prohibited by the UFA. But the sign and enforcement under the statewide trespass statute might not be prohibited.

You can't ignore half the argument and assume that you are immune to prosecution for ignoring the NO GUNS signs, simply because you have your own argument. They have a non-frivolous argument, too. Every court case has two opposing arguments, and at least one of them always loses. So don't tell others to carry their guns into posted parks so that they can be the test case, unless they are willing to be the test case.

We have a court system which, with a straight face, found that a list of gun purchasers and their guns, with names and models and serial numbers, was not a "gun registry". Factor that in when placing your bets on the outcome of a court case.

[MrUgly]

Shefearsnothing,

Longs Park is governed by the Longs Park Commission, an entity of the Lancaster City recreation dept. The person in charge is Charlotte Katzenmoyer. The procedure for dispute would appear to be to call the Mayors office, ask to be put on the monthly agenda and then explain why the ordinance is flawed. Longs park is a slightly different animal, as it was private property willed to the city by the now deceased Mrs. Long. She had a large amount of stipulation in the will, so that will likely have some bearing on your outcome.

Good luck.

[Statkowski]

She had a large amount of stipulation in the will, so that will likely have some bearing on your outcome.

Yes, but any stipulation, or contract provision, that is contrary to public policy would be held invalid.

And whether or not it was once upon a time private property is immaterial. It is now public property, open to the public. Whereas private property owners may have certain say-so over who may or may not access their public access areas, government entities do not.

My borough owns several plots of land. Some are posted, and are not open to the public. Others are public parks, open to the public. Open to the public is open to the public, without restrictions.

[GunLawyer001]

..... Open to the public is open to the public, without restrictions.

Just out of curiosity, what's your basis for saying this? It sounds a little bit like "concealed means concealed", which has a nice symmetry to it but has no legal basis, and is nonetheless the mantra of cops who hassle the OC crowd.

[jack76590]

What is the maximum penalty they can impose? Is it a criminal penalty that would go on your record or is it more on the order of you were fined for having your dog off the leash?

[Statkowski]

Open to the public, without restrictions

What's meant there is they can't say "No left-handed people permitted," "No unaccompanied teenagers," "Singles only," etc., etc.

Basically, if they let one person in they have to let everyone in unless they're violating some other law (drunk and disorderly, not wearing any clothes at all, running around while waving a sword, etc.). Nothing overly complicated; no nipicking involved.

Carrying a sidearm is not basically illegal (yes, there are exceptions), and political subdivisions cannot restrict such carry, so they cannot restrict firearms in a public park. Open to one, open to all.

No need to complicate the issue any further.

Yes, they can regulate the operating hours. Yes, they can regulate discharge of firearms.

[GunLawyer001]

What's meant there is they can't say "No left-handed people permitted," "No unaccompanied teenagers," "Singles only," etc., etc.

Basically, if they let one person in they have to let everyone in unless they're violating some other law (drunk and disorderly, not wearing any clothes at all, running around while waving a sword, etc.). Nothing overly complicated; no nipicking involved.

Carrying a sidearm is not basically illegal (yes, there are exceptions), and political subdivisions cannot restrict such carry, so they cannot restrict firearms in a public park. Open to one, open to all.

No need to complicate the issue any further.

Yes, they can regulate the operating hours. Yes, they can regulate discharge of firearms.

OK, I'm still missing the basis for that limitation. "Invidious discrimination" against "suspect categories" is prohibited, so they can't post "NO NEGROES" or "NO OLD PEOPLE" or "NO ARABS" signs, but they could legitimately require that you wear shoes, or prohibit pets, or exclude bicycles, or impose a slew of other arbitrary conditions on use of the property. In the absence of a clear prohibition, they could (in their capacity as land owner) close the park entirely, or open it for skateboarding only, or make it a dog park. As long as they don't "regulate" firearms possession (and that may be limited to statutory action), there's no special protection for guns. Guns are not a suspect classification.

But the broad rule that "open to the public means open to the public" is without meaning in this context, since they can and do proscribe a host of lawful activities.

As a side note, this is a great site for finding out what the law is on gun-related issues. Sometimes the answer is not readily available, because the statute is vague and the case law is non-existent. Making up an answer where there's no reliable authority really just dilutes the knowledge base, and creates the potential for someone to believe the "guess at the law" and act in reliance on it, striding confidently across a public park despite the signs, getting arrested, then finding out that the W.A.G. that was presented as legal fact is not admissible in court.