Atty. Joshua Price to sue Lower Merion over gun law..

[Cyclops]

Gun Lawyer Joshua Prince was on the NPR Radio Times (Host Marty Moss Coane) this morning. He was debating Shira Goodman an anti 2A spokesperson. Josh did a good job. Josh was a speaker at the Lower Merion gun owners rally on Sunday. Since LM has refused to repeal its No Guns in Twp. Parks law, he was asked if he intended to file suit against the Township. His answer was "Yes," and he indicated that he intended to file the suit within a week. If you want to listen to program there is an audio of it here.

[JL911]

The residents of any township, city, municipality or county that chooses to recklessly spend their tax dollars in order to maintain an illegal law should be outraged. These township supervisors are taking your money and using it to keep an illegal law on the books in order to limit your freedom per the state constitution. Who the hell do these people think they are?

[ImminentDanger]

Here's the ruling:
http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinio...5_12-16-16.pdf

From the ruling - FOAC vs Lower Merion Township

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
No. 1693 C.D. 2015

Firearm Owners Against Crime,
Kim Stolfer and Joseph Abramson,
Appellants

Argued: May 12, 2016

BEFORE:
HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, Judge
HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge
HONORABLE DAN PELLEGRINI, Senior Judge

OPINION BY JUDGE McCULLOUGH

FILED: December 16, 2016

From the ruling

Conclusion
Contrary to the trial court’s determination, this Court’s decision in Minich does not support the notion that the Ordinance is consistent with the UFA nor raise doubts regarding Firearm Owners’ right to relief. Rather, our decision in City of Philadelphia
expressly rejected the argument the Township proffered in the present matter, i.e., that the regulation of unlawful firearm possession is consistent with the UFA. Therefore, the trial court’s determination that Firearm Owners’ right to relief is not clear was erroneous. Moreover, Firearm Owners have met the additional, essential prerequisites for issuance of a preliminary injunction.

Accordingly, because there are no apparently reasonable grounds for the trial court’s decision, the trial court’s order is reversed.

And the Prince Law Office's Blog: https://blog.princelaw.com/2016/12/1...tions-unlawful

My thanks to FOAC, Kim Stolfer and Joseph Abramson, the Prince Law Office and all those who have supported the effort to reestablish the rule of law for our government entities.

...

[Pilot321]

Labor attorney, meaning union puppet, meaning communist. Public policy advocate? I am part of the public, and I guarantee she never advocated for anything sensible, or that I wanted.

Shira Goodman is CeaseFirePA’s Executive Director. She has extensive experience in the nonprofit world and joined the organization following ten years as a public policy advocate working for better courts in Pennsylvania and a career in labor law. She is involved in the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and American Bar Associations, and serves on the board of the Legal Intelligencer and several community nonprofits.

This is our enemy folks.

http://www.ceasefirepa.org/about-us/...aff-and-board/

[Emptymag]

Is there a "Trump's America" English translation for us uneducated folk?

[streaker69]

Is there a "Trump's America" English translation for us uneducated folk?

Injunction granted, and the dissenting judge tried to pull a Footnote #9.

[ImminentDanger]

From the ruling - dissent

DISSENTING OPINION BY SENIOR JUDGE PELLEGRINI
FILED: December 16, 2016

I respectfully dissent because the trial court had an “apparently reasonable basis” to refuse to issue a preliminary injunction to declare invalid a 2011 township ordinance dealing with guns in its parks, and no action for a civil penalty has been brought under our restrictive scope of review which forecloses inquiry into the merits of the controversy.

Even on the underlying merits, the majority gets it wrong as our case law is clear: a local government can control, like every other property owner, what takes place on its property. The net result of the majority not following our case law is something that the General Assembly never intended − that a local government must permit guns in and on property that it owns, including its recreation centers, ballfields, daycare centers and libraries, not to mention county offices in the courthouse, in its police department, at its jail, in its council chambers, in its mayor’s office and so on.

...

[ImminentDanger]

Is there a "Trump's America" English translation for us uneducated folk?

The ruling said FOAC had standing to challenge the ordinance and the ordinance is in violation of the UFA - only the state can regulate firearms... The dissent said FOAC does not have standing to question the ordinance because no citations were given based on the ordinance and, furthermore, the local government has a right to regulate it's own property...

From the ruling - regarding Authority to Regulate it's own Property

We find the present matter distinguishable from Wolfe because, here, pursuant to Ortiz and City of Philadelphia, the Ordinance is not consistent with the UFA. Rather, the UFA explicitly prohibits a township from regulating “in any manner” and contains no express exemptions authorizing a township to enact ordinances permitting firearm regulation on its property, i.e., parks, comparable to that contained in the Game Law.

Additionally, it is not clear whether the Ordinance was promulgated pursuant to the Township’s police powers or based on its rights as a property owner; however, the fact that the Ordinance authorizes the police to remove violators from Township parks suggests the Township’s police power is the basis for the Ordinance rather than its property-owner rights.

Therefore, the Township’s argument that Firearm Owners’ right to relief is not clear based on its authority to regulate its parks as a property owner pursuant to Wolfe is unpersuasive.

From the ruling

Immediate and Irreparable Harm

The Township also argues that Firearm Owners cannot demonstrate immediate and irreparable harm because the Ordinance has never been enforced against them, nor were they ever threatened with prosecution under the Ordinance.

This Court has stated that the violation of an express statutory provision constitutes per se irreparable harm and a preliminary injunction may issue where the other necessary elements are met.

Here, as explicated above, regardless of the persuasiveness of the Township’s argument, our binding case law mandates that the Ordinance is preempted by section 6120(a) of the UFA and, therefore, the Township’s enactment of the same violates the UFA. Thus, issuance of a preliminary injunction is necessary to prevent immediate and irreparable harm, i.e., the continued statutory violation.

From footnote 10: (bolding added)

City of Pittsburgh is informative because it contemplates conferring standing on litigants who have violated an ordinance even if no enforcement action has occurred. In the present matter, it is undisputed that FOAC and many of its members conducted a rally in a Township park while carrying firearms in violation of the Ordinance , although no citations were issued and no threats of prosecution were made. Indeed, pursuant to City of Pittsburgh, the fact that FOAC violated the Ordinance is sufficient to confer standing to obtain judicial review. As Judge Brobson explained in his dissent to City of Pittsburgh, we cannot presume that a local government would enact an ordinance it has no intention of enforcing. Thus, although the Township did not enforce the Ordinance when FOAC and its members conducted a rally in its park, we must not presume that it will act similarly if another rally is performed or an individual violates the Ordinance. Here, unlike City of Pittsburgh, the injury alleged is not speculative; the operative act has already occurred.

...

[GunLawyer001]

So....just what I wrote here back in 2006, in my first post on the site. Local govt can't use govt power to impose additional burdens on possessing or carrying firearms, but it's still possible to have "policies" which don't implicate their govt authority, just like Walmart or any other owner of property which is held open to the public for specific purposes. You can't walk into the mayor's office with a gun, if they say you can't, even though his office is public property, albeit with less traffic than a park.

http://forum.pafoa.org/showthread.ph...5891#post15891

[ImminentDanger]

So....just what I wrote here back in 2006, in my first post on the site. Local govt can't use govt power to impose additional burdens on possessing or carrying firearms, but it's still possible to have "policies" which don't implicate their govt authority, just like Walmart or any other owner of property which is held open to the public for specific purposes. You can't walk into the mayor's office with a gun, if they say you can't, even though his office is public property, albeit with less traffic than a park.

http://forum.pafoa.org/showthread.ph...5891#post15891

Your repeated assertion of that position appears as though you are advocating that position as appropriate...

It appears that the dissenting opinion of SENIOR JUDGE PELLEGRINI agrees with you - From his dissent:

As can be seen from Wolfe, the Township was not attempting to regulate conduct throughout the municipality but only what takes place on property that it owns or controls. What Minich and Wolfe teach us is that Section 6120(a) of the UFA does not preempt a local government from acting like any other property owner and control what occurs on its property by allowing or not allowing conduct that it feels is not in its best interest or that of its guests.

The majority does not dispute that Minich and Wolfe say what they say, but instead argues that they are inconsistent with our Supreme Court’s decision in Ortiz v. Commonwealth, 681 A.2d 152 (Pa. 1996), and our decision in City of Philadelphia, 977 A.2d at 82.

But, the majority opinion does not agree with regards to, specifically, firearms regulations...

The majority opinion asserts that firearms regulation (of any kind) is a state-wide issue and that the preemption clause of 6120(a) overrides the claim of control rights of property ownership where the control issue is specifically related to firearms regulation by local government - but it does not relate to the general principle of control rights for privately owned property...

If I misunderstood your advocacy or the majority opinion, please point me to the specifics of my misunderstanding...

...