Promised Land State park OC confusion !

[knight0334]

Greetings,

Still trying to get to the bottom of this. If I recall correctly, one of the alleged "laws" against OC had to do with a subsection of PA GAME LAW. I had the opportunity to speak to the local PA Game Conservation Officer and discuss this. Her reply was that the State preemption absolutely prohibited GAME officers from interfering with ANY type of carry in State Parks. She suggested that I discuss with the Parks Dept, which I intend to do soon as I can.

So, to anyone who has had an adverse encounter, do you know if it was a GAME or PARK ranger? Please let me know so I can have more accurate info for the discussion. Thanks!

Regards, Jim

It wasn't connected with the Game Laws. It was connected to DNCR Regulations that originally didn't allow firearms in State Parks, except for hunting or if kept in the vehicles. PA law changed thereafter allowing licensees to carry under the pretenses of 18.61.6109, which covers carrying concealed with a license. ...which then left a gray area, carrying openly.

But there again later, PA law added another portion of law that enforced preemption against state agencies. ....which the DNCR has yet to fully respect. ....which in turn leads us to the topic at hand - whether or not the M.2 paragraph of 18.61.6109 applies to the DNCR's regulations in State Parks.

[Parrisk]

The Preemption, isn't that what the Gambling Commission recently got a bitch slap about because their regulations prohibited firearms in gambling casinos...
No it is up to the property owner because under preemption the PA Gambling Commission has nothing to say about firearms.

[Daycrawler]

The Preemption, isn't that what the Gambling Commission recently got a bitch slap about because their regulations prohibited firearms in gambling casinos...
No it is up to the property owner because under preemption the PA Gambling Commission has nothing to say about firearms.

Most likely that is what happened. The Preemption law is still not honored by all law enforcement and its employers.

[jim-analog]

Greetings,

Knight, thanks much for the info. I'll use this to follow up with the Parks Dept. locally and post any info that I get. If I make some progress, perhaps others in different areas could pursue a similar strategy. Much appreciate the specific law cites.

Regards, Jim

It wasn't connected with the Game Laws. It was connected to DNCR Regulations that originally didn't allow firearms in State Parks, except for hunting or if kept in the vehicles. PA law changed thereafter allowing licensees to carry under the pretenses of 18.61.6109,............. whether or not the M.2 paragraph of 18.61.6109 applies to the DNCR's regulations in State Parks.

[jim-analog]

Greetings,

Knight, to follow up, I just went through all the documents you cited. I *think* I discovered our resolution to non-recognition of OC as applied to within State Parks. If you (or any others with better understanding of how PA statutes are written) could please take a look at this next section of 18.61.6109


m.3 states:

Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be construed to:

then section -2 says:

(2) Authorize any Commonwealth agency to regulate the possession of firearms in any manner inconsistent with the provisions of this title.

So, would that not show intent of preemption for OC under the circumstances we're discussing? Thanks much for any further clarifications!

Regards, Jim

[knight0334]

Greetings,

Knight, to follow up, I just went through all the documents you cited. I *think* I discovered our resolution to non-recognition of OC as applied to within State Parks. If you (or any others with better understanding of how PA statutes are written) could please take a look at this next section of 18.61.6109


m.3 states:

Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be construed to:

then section -2 says:

(2) Authorize any Commonwealth agency to regulate the possession of firearms in any manner inconsistent with the provisions of this title.

So, would that not show intent of preemption for OC under the circumstances we're discussing? Thanks much for any further clarifications!

Regards, Jim

"We" have already thrown that argument at them. ....they refuse to acknowledge.

That is the problem. They, DNCR, State Parks, etc, refuse to acknowledge the provision above.

This will require a Superior or Supreme Court ruling. ...which neither court is friendly to our cause at the moment.

[gnbrotz]

"We" have already thrown that argument at them. ....they refuse to acknowledge.

That is the problem. They, DNCR, State Parks, etc, refuse to acknowledge the provision above.

This will require a Superior or Supreme Court ruling. ...which neither court is friendly to our cause at the moment.

All accurate, but it also seems that they (DCNR) aren't really excited about enforcing it and issuing a citation, either.

[R L Suehr]

All accurate, but it also seems that they (DCNR) aren't really excited about enforcing it and issuing a citation, either.

No, they'd rather harass people and try to make things difficult than give anyone standing to challenge them. Without someone getting cited, there's no way for the law to get changed and they know it.

[jim-analog]

Greetings,

Darn, seems the perfect situation that HB-2011/ Act 192 would have allowed standing for. Have to get that passed as a stand alone.

Regards, Jim
'

No, they'd rather harass people and try to make things difficult than give anyone standing to challenge them. Without someone getting cited, there's no way for the law to get changed and they know it.

[Daycrawler]

Well guys I printed out all the information I needed for this weekend. Anyhow when I got to the cabin the park it was hopping all weekend. It just wasn't good timing to sit down with the park Ranger's. Ill be going up again soon. Hopefully the park will not be so busy.

On a side note a Monster Bear came into our cabin tonight while eating dinner. My Brother made ribs on the grill. That was all it took for the bear to walk on in. When he got close to the grill I started banging a pot lid. He backed off after that. We estimated him between 450 to 500 pounds. He had a leg injury to the right front leg. hopefully he will recover from the leg injury. He appeared healthy and had a very nice coat.