Polk planners table gun rules

**Bang** · February 17th, 2020, 10:22 PM

Originally Posted by Hodgie

I joined here in 2013 so I am unfamiliar with what you are speaking about.

Differing legal takes on how and when to open doors. Some plan two moves ahead in chess, some plan six.

**GunLawyer001** · February 18th, 2020, 01:08 AM

Originally Posted by Hodgie

I joined here in 2013 so I am unfamiliar with what you are speaking about.

There are those who believe that God is so fully on our side that no judge would dare have a different interpretation of the Constitution(s) or laws. History shows us otherwise. PA preemption is not magic, it has limitations, and one of those is the difference between "laws" and "rules", and how that difference manifests itself when the locals own the venue.

Asking a judge to settle the matter will (and has) sometimes disappoint everyone except those who get paid for their participation.

**PAMedic=F|A=** · February 18th, 2020, 09:01 AM

Originally Posted by GunLawyer001

There are those who believe that God is so fully on our side that no judge would dare have a different interpretation of the Constitution(s) or laws. History shows us otherwise. PA preemption is not magic, it has limitations, and one of those is the difference between "laws" and "rules", and how that difference manifests itself when the locals own the venue.

Asking a judge to settle the matter will (and has) sometimes disappoint everyone except those who get paid for their participation.

Come now, let not your faith weaken. God is assuredly on our side, but the devil is the greatDissembler and we must always have concern for his power.

**Hodgie** · February 18th, 2020, 02:00 PM

Originally Posted by GunLawyer001

There are those who believe that God is so fully on our side that no judge would dare have a different interpretation of the Constitution(s) or laws. History shows us otherwise. PA preemption is not magic, it has limitations, and one of those is the difference between "laws" and "rules", and how that difference manifests itself when the locals own the venue.

Asking a judge to settle the matter will (and has) sometimes disappoint everyone except those who get paid for their participation.

Okay I understand now. One question what about when the rules carry penalties by law such as steep fines, property confiscations, and jail time? These are for things done on your own property as stated in the new regulations or rules posted above.

**GunLawyer001** · February 18th, 2020, 04:21 PM

Originally Posted by Hodgie

Okay I understand now. One question what about when the rules carry penalties by law such as steep fines, property confiscations, and jail time? These are for things done on your own property as stated in the new regulations or rules posted above.

My opinion (which has not been weakened by the limited rulings since 2006) is that state preemption only applies to municipalities using their govt authority to criminalize behavior, not to using their rights as land owners.

So they can't make it a summary offense for you to have an AR-15 on your own land, or to transport it on the local streets. But they can probably have "policies" without criminal sanctions, applicable to their own properties, just like any other landlord or renter or property owner.

There's an argument against this, too. A govt employer is limited in what it can do in ways that a private employer is not, when the prohibited act is covered by the Bill of Rights. You can argue that a govt entity can't have a policy against guns in a municipal building that has no court in it, because as a govt entity it's constrained by the contracts between the People and the Government, whereas Walmart is not so constrained. It's a non-frivolous argument, but I wouldn't bet the house on it winning in a government court. (Remember, judges' paychecks come from the same place as other govt employees, so they are selected with a bias.)

**Statkowski** · February 18th, 2020, 05:13 PM

Originally Posted by GunLawyer001

My opinion (which has not been weakened by the limited rulings since 2006) is that state preemption only applies to municipalities using their govt authority to criminalize behavior, not to using their rights as land owners.

Two problems I see with your opinion (which you are well entitled to):

a. Municipalities are not "land owners" in that they're more "stewards" of public property. The real land owners are the citizens of the municipality as a whole. If an area (e.g., a woodlot, a watershed, a maintenance garage) is not open to the public, then the municipality is more land owner than steward and may behave accordingly, but if it's open to the public then the municipality is more steward than landowner.

b. The state's preemption law states that municipalities may not, in any manner, regulate firearms. "In any manner" covers a broad range, from opinions to policies to ordinances, any and all of which are controlled by state preemption.

**GunLawyer001** · February 18th, 2020, 07:25 PM

Originally Posted by Statkowski

Two problems I see with your opinion (which you are well entitled to):

a. Municipalities are not "land owners" in that they're more "stewards" of public property. The real land owners are the citizens of the municipality as a whole. If an area (e.g., a woodlot, a watershed, a maintenance garage) is not open to the public, then the municipality is more land owner than steward and may behave accordingly, but if it's open to the public then the municipality is more steward than landowner.

b. The state's preemption law states that municipalities may not, in any manner, regulate firearms. "In any manner" covers a broad range, from opinions to policies to ordinances, any and all of which are controlled by state preemption.

The "managers" of land are generally entitled to control how that land is used. A majority of the citizens can decide to sell the public park, but the law won't allow them, because it turns out, no, they aren't the "real owners".

"In any manner" is less important than the word "regulate". Most courts will interpret that in this context to "enacting ordinances", probably criminal ordinances.

Look at the footnote of the case I won't mention here, but which you certainly know. Reflect on whether that expressed opinion is more consistent with my views or yours. That court was TELLING the anti's how to get what they want. Courts act through people, and anti-gun judges are people, and they often twist the logic to get their desired outcome, more so on the Left than on the Right, because Conservatives tend to be self-regulated by principles and ethics, while activist Progressives pretend to see penumbras while thinking that the 2nd Amendment is about Congress being forbidden to forbid itself the right to supply weapons to the National Guard.