PA Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Lower Merion Preemption Appeal

[GunLawyer001]

I know much to your disappointment, Lower Merion did argue, consistent with FN 9, that they were permitted to regulate as a private property owner and the Commonwealth Court ruled against them, although the author of FN 9, Judge Pellegrini, filed a dissenting opinion stating that they should be able to regulate as a private property owner. On their Petition of Allowance of Appeal, Lower Merion again, now with support from Harrisburg and Philadelphia as an Amici, focused on their right to regulate as a private property owner and the PA Supreme Court wasn't inclined to agree with them, so the Court declined to hear their appeal. It sure would be nice if others would submit amici briefs in OUR favor at least from time to time - but, alas, it seems like I am the only one that gives significant amounts of my time to the cause to ensure that our rights are protected.

The court ruled against them because the ordinance used their police power, allowed for a fine, and authorized the cops to remove them.

"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."

I won't address your last claim because it's self-evidently false.

[SigForLife]

I won't address your last claim because it's self-evidently false.

Always funny when someone plays Monday morning quarterback, who neither participated in the game nor watched it. And, if you were insinuating that you have filed amicus briefs in the PA appellate courts, it is interesting that the appellate court dockets don't have you ever having handled an appellate issue, let alone an amicus brief. Everyone can check by simply going to the UJS Portal https://ujsportal.pacourts.us/Docket...Appellate.aspx and then under docket sheets, clicking appellate courts. Then change the search type by court name and select the appellate court - Supreme, Commonwealth or Superior. One can then search merely by attorney name. Using your name, for each court, reflects no records.

[GunLawyer001]

Always funny when someone plays Monday morning quarterback, who neither participated in the game nor watched it. And, if you were insinuating that you have filed amicus briefs in the PA appellate courts, it is interesting that the appellate court dockets don't have you ever having handled an appellate issue, let alone an amicus brief. Everyone can check by simply going to the UJS Portal https://ujsportal.pacourts.us/Docket...Appellate.aspx and then under docket sheets, clicking appellate courts. Then change the search type by court name and select the appellate court - Supreme, Commonwealth or Superior. One can then search merely by attorney name. Using your name, for each court, reflects no records.

You failed to correct the post that assumed that the case meant that no municipality was now allowed to post their parks "no guns", so I corrected it.

I said what I said, I insinuated nothing. I and other lawyers have done a lot for the cause, without the self-publicizing and self-congratulation that we sometimes see from you. There are plenty of ways to help PA gun owners, and they don't all involve headlines or cash or eliminating 302 relief. And I have never been sued by co-counsel. And lost.

Would you like to stop now, and just focus on accurate statements about the case? That's where I started here. Your case didn't reject the municipal property argument, it held that it didn't apply to these facts. Kind of like I said back in 2006, right here on PAFOA.

[SigForLife]

The court ruled against them because the ordinance used their police power, allowed for a fine, and authorized the cops to remove them.

"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."

I won't address your last claim because it's self-evidently false.

Funny, you seem to leave out of your snip-it, the preceding statement by the Court "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."

[Berncly]

Dudes.
You are both rock stars to our community and beyond.
You both do excellent work that benefits us all.
As a guy who wishes he could do more but can't, I very much appreciate what you guys do.
As do many, many other people.
There is still plenty of fight left to do out there.
No sense in wasting the fight in here.
Respectfully,
Berncly

[internet troll]

Dudes.
You are both rock stars to our community and beyond.
You both do excellent work that benefits us all.
As a guy who wishes he could do more but can't, I very much appreciate what you guys do.
As do many, many other people.
There is still plenty of fight left to do out there.
No sense in wasting the fight in here.
Respectfully,
Berncly

That's a lot more mature than the "Lawyer Fight" comment I was tempted to throw out there.

[bluetrane2028]

So, I can now OC instead of CC at the LM park my kid plays at? Cool.

[RenoV8]

That's a lot more mature than the "Lawyer Fight" comment I was tempted to throw out there.

...and a little more mature than wanting to hear more about being sued by co-counsel and losing...

[GunLawyer001]

Funny, you seem to leave out of your snip-it, the preceding statement by the Court "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."

Signs are not "ordinances". The snippet you posted doesn't contradict my point at all. Telling people that they are free to ignore "no guns" signs in municipal parks is not backed up by this case. This case stands for the old proposition that municipalities can't enact ordinances that restrict our gun rights.

What I posted back in 2006:

http://forum.pafoa.org/showthread.ph...ge=7#post15891

[RockIsland]

That's a lot more mature than the "Lawyer Fight" comment I was tempted to throw out there.

You too? Last person I want to peeve is a lawyer, so I didn't.

What I've never understood, is how a Township could be considered a property owner if it's public property.