Pennsylvania 2A UPDATE with GOA PA Director Col. Val Finnell

[Hodgie]

Truthfully, I don't know anyone who believes that a local ordinance will stop federal, state or county tyrants. To me, this movement is strictly political. It is a finger in the Left's eye. "Oh, you can have sanctuary cities, so can we." You know, create havoc, cause them some heartburn. Watch them run around screaming, "not fair, not fair". Use their very tactics against them. It is in my view a potentially effective form of activism while at the same time, getting some gun owners off the couch.

Is that all worth it? Maybe. Am I ready to fight that battle for what is probably just the shear fun of it, probably not. I have too many other political projects in progress. But if someone here locally headed that effort, would I support them, probably yes.

Well their sanctuary cities actually work because the Mayors of those cities control the law enforcement I guess we can have ones too in name only but at what cost?

[Justin///M]

I believe in VA they took this stance to protect themselves from any new or further restrictions made by the newly purchased assembly. They will not be ignoring existing gun laws and what every process were already in place on state and federal levels. Without the backing of the Sheriff there would be no teeth for these measures.

In PA it's symbolic at best and I'm personally not interested in wasting time, resources, money, and creating a divide among gun owners on a statement no one on the other side gives a shit about including those enforcing the law. So to answer your question if you build a MG illegally expect to get a visit from the ATF, then expect only a press release from the GOA extending its verbal support for your right to own such a weapon under the constitution and nothing more.

I agree, I think I'm going to come down on the side of following FOAC's lead on this. We have more important things to be pushing in PA than SASO. As noted before, though, this SASO seems to bring people out of the wood work. There's a lot of engagement on social media so that's positive, I think.

[ExFlyinguy]

The best a PA Sheriff can offer under the circumstances is a promise to give you the finest cell in the jail

[Hodgie]

I agree, I think I'm going to come down on the side of following FOAC's lead on this. We have more important things to be pushing in PA than SASO. As noted before, though, this SASO seems to bring people out of the wood work. There's a lot of engagement on social media so that's positive, I think.

My fear is that the other side will just use this as an excuse to do as they wish when it comes to running their city or county outside of Philly or Pittsburgh. How many have had anti gun ordinances shot down or were told to stop or face law suit under state law already? Gun owners can’t have it both ways and trust me the other side isn’t going to let us.

We can definitely use the momentum from VA to move and motivate PA forward but this isn’t VA and their winning formula isn’t exactly going to fit here.

[longcall911]

My fear is that the other side will just use this as an excuse to do as they wish when it comes to running their city or county outside of Philly or Pittsburgh. How many have had anti gun ordinances shot down or were told to stop or face law suit under state law already? Gun owners can’t have it both ways and trust me the other side isn’t going to let us.

We can definitely use the momentum from VA to move and motivate PA forward but this isn’t VA and their winning formula isn’t exactly going to fit here.

I'm not convinced that SASO makes much of a difference, one way or another, helping or hurting.

A given county, city, or municipality is currently run by either Republicans or Democrats. For those that are Republican run, if they were to pass such an ordinance, Democrats could scream all they want. It is unlikely that suddenly those same jurisdictions would say "you're right, we can't have it both ways so we'll also become a sanctuary city to be fair to you progressives."

In those jurisdictions that Democrats run, they simply won't take up such ordinances.

So, I really don't see SASO as much of anything other than a political statement. That said, if 60 PA counties passed it as a resolution rather than an ordinance, we'd be sending one hell of a statement to Wolf. Would that really matter? Probably not much, but it sure would feel good! :-)

[buckengr]

On one hand, we have current preemption law that many (including me) have fought to not only defend, but strengthen. SASO defies it.

The bolded part is the part I don't follow. I don't understand how a local ordinance which has no (theoretical) effect other than to penalize a violation of the supreme law of the land, e.g. the Constitution, can be subordinate to a state-level firearms preemption law which prohibits municipalities from passing ordinances regulating firearms.

SASOs don't regulate firearms. They regulate violation of the Constitution.

Again, I understand the power of SASOs is limited in PA given the lack of authority of local sheriffs, for the most part. But I don't see how something which says (essentially) "Municipalities can't violate the supreme law of the land or else this penalty applies" stands at odds with "Municipalities can't make ordinances that regulate firearms".

[longcall911]

The bolded part is the part I don't follow. I don't understand how a local ordinance which has no (theoretical) effect other than to penalize a violation of the supreme law of the land, e.g. the Constitution, can be subordinate to a state-level firearms preemption law which prohibits municipalities from passing ordinances regulating firearms.

SASOs don't regulate firearms. They regulate violation of the Constitution.

Again, I understand the power of SASOs is limited in PA given the lack of authority of local sheriffs, for the most part. But I don't see how something which says (essentially) "Municipalities can't violate the supreme law of the land or else this penalty applies" stands at odds with "Municipalities can't make ordinances that regulate firearms".

Well, the SASO template says:

SECTION 3. PROHIBITIONS
A. Notwithstanding any other law, regulation, rule or order to
the contrary, no agent, department, employee or official of
________ (LOCALITY), a political subdivision of the State
of (STATE), while acting in their official capacity, shall:
1. Knowingly and willingly, participate in any way in the
enforcement of any Unlawful Act, as defined herein,
regarding personal firearms, firearm accessories, or
ammunition.
2. Utilize any assets, (LOCALITY) funds, or funds
allocated by any entity to the (LOCALITY), in whole or
in part, to engage in any activity that aids in the
enforcement or investigation relating to an Unlawful
Act in connection with personal firearms, firearm
accessories, or ammunition

And while it may not be crystal clear to me, I can see where some would argue (and have a valid basis) that this is an ordinance pertaining to firearms. I think that Josh Prince feels that is so, but it is of course best to check with him.

I guess I'm saying that your statement "SASOs don't regulate firearms. They regulate violation of the Constitution." is not as obviously correct to me. SASOs would regulate enforcement of firearms laws. So, is that lawful under 6120? Smarter people than me need to figure that out.

[Henny]

Well, the SASO template says:

SECTION 3. PROHIBITIONS
A. Notwithstanding any other law, regulation, rule or order to
the contrary, no agent, department, employee or official of
________ (LOCALITY), a political subdivision of the State
of (STATE), while acting in their official capacity, shall:
1. Knowingly and willingly, participate in any way in the
enforcement of any Unlawful Act, as defined herein,
regarding personal firearms, firearm accessories, or
ammunition.
2. Utilize any assets, (LOCALITY) funds, or funds
allocated by any entity to the (LOCALITY), in whole or
in part, to engage in any activity that aids in the
enforcement or investigation relating to an Unlawful
Act in connection with personal firearms, firearm
accessories, or ammunition

And while it may not be crystal clear to me, I can see where some would argue (and have a valid basis) that this is an ordinance pertaining to firearms. I think that Josh Prince feels that is so, but it is of course best to check with him.

I guess I'm saying that your statement "SASOs don't regulate firearms. They regulate violation of the Constitution." is not as obviously correct to me. SASOs would regulate enforcement of firearms laws. So, is that lawful under 6120? Smarter people than me need to figure that out.

The next paragraph (B) in the sample ordinance is relevant. :


A. Notwithstanding any other law, regulation, rule or order to the contrary, no agent, department, employee or official of [COUNTY NAME] County, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, while acting in their official capacity, shall:

1. Knowingly and willingly, participate in any way in the enforcement of any Unlawful Act, as defined herein, regarding personal firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition.

2. Utilize any assets, [COUNTY NAME] County funds, or funds allocated by any entity to the County, in whole or in part, to engage in any activity that aids in the enforcement or investigation relating to an Unlawful Act in connection with personal firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition.

B. This ordinance does not regulate the lawful ownership,
possession, transfer or transportation of firearms, ammunition or ammunition components. On the contrary, this ordinance prohibits the enforcement of Unlawful Acts or use of assets, [COUNTY NAME] County funds, or funds allocated by any entity to the County, in whole or in part, to engage in any activity that aids in the enforcement or investigation relating to an Unlawful Act.