State/local law on discharging a firearm?

[dieselkarl]

The OP may be in a nearby township that has a Collegeville Postal code, i.e. Perkiomen Township.

[bigandy1966]

Maybe you would be violating game laws? You are hunting in a safety zone. Rabbits in season? Have a hunting license?Have you taken the mandatory hunters safety class?

[OldSchoolPC]

Maybe you would be violating game laws? You are hunting in a safety zone. Rabbits in season? Have a hunting license?Have you taken the mandatory hunters safety class?

So glad you mentioned that. Game laws are something that I am not educated on. However, it's not hunting by any definition that I am aware of, it's killing. No, I am not saying that to be a cop-out. There's a different between "small game hunting" and "varmint killing". If a rabbit is on my lawn, and I shoot it because it's a "target of opportunity", that'd clearly be breaking game laws. But if that rabbit is eating my f*cking garden, it's pest control. Get it? Is my logic off? Look at it this way, suppose I left poison out for rabbits which is (probably) legal. That's not hunting. However, for whatever reason I choose not to use that form of varmint control. Perhaps because it IS illegal, and using snares are illegal too. See what I mean?

[bigandy1966]

Sorry no. I dont see what you mean. Its not the current occupation of the animal that classifies it, its what that animal species is and if its regulated by the game commission. You see it as a pest, but the game laws see it as a game animal.
Pests are animals that have no value as a food or fur animal, like rats, mice starlings english sparrows etc. Some of these animals are destructive invasive species These animals are not regulated, and may be hunted year round
Varmints are animals that are predatory and have value as fur bearers, like Fox Mink weasles and coyotes. These are regulated by the PA game commission as fur bearers and may only be taken by licensed trappers or hunters in their season unless they are attacking livestock or injuring pets.

Small Game animals like Squirrels, Rabbits and Woodchucks are regulated by game laws and must be taken by legal means, No air guns , semiauto .22s etc. In season and by a licensed hunter that has taken a hunters education class.
See what I mean?
I would recommend fox urine as a repellent

[lourendo]

§ 2705. Recklessly endangering another person.
A person commits a misdemeanor of the second degree if he
recklessly engages in conduct which places or may place another
person in danger of death or serious bodily injury.

Cross References. Section 2705 is referred to in sections
2709.1, 2711 of this title; section 6711 of Title 23 (Domestic
Relations).


I would say that this is a cut and dry case.

[OldSchoolPC]

No, not cut and dry. It would be cut and dry if "reckless" wasn't in there.

Let's read that again WITHOUT the word reckless.

§ 2705. Endangering another person.
A person commits a misdemeanor of the second degree if he
engages in conduct which places or may place another
person in danger of death or serious bodily injury.

So, I see your operating a motor-vehicle. Your under arrest for endangering another person!

No, it must rise to the level of "reckless".

§ 2705. Recklessly endangering another person.
A person commits a misdemeanor of the second degree if he
recklessly engages in conduct which places or may place another
person in danger of death or serious bodily injury.

So, it must A: Place somebody in danger of serious bodily harm
Or
B: May place somebody in danger of serious bodily harm
Or
C: Place somebody in danger of death
Or
D: May place somebody in danger of death


AND ALSO: Be Reckless

Shooting a bird out of a tree in a city, means the bullets (or shot) may fall and hit somebody. It may place somebody in danger of serious bodily harm or death. Shooting a rabbit in a garden bed, does not place anybody else in danger. MAY it place somebody else in danger.... okay... maybe if there is a rock/rake for a ricochet. But not serious bodily harm, and not death. But generally speaking if you dump birdshot into the ground... it's into the ground. Any fliers wouldn't cause, nor may cause serious bodily harm or death. If such actions were SOOO reckless, then why isn't there an ordinance against discharge? Why isn't there a state-law against any discharge in a town or city? So, firing at the ground might be considered ill-advised, or even poor judgement, but does not rise to the level of reckless. Firing shots into the air indiscriminately during the 4th of july is.

Remember dick Cheney? His poor judgement was reckless endangerment. No serious bodily harm resulted, but COULD have been do to his reckless handling of a long-gun.
Now, say Dick cheney did it again but this time narrowly missed. Also reckless endangerment.
Now, let's say he shoot's downward toward a rabbit, and his hunting party is 10 yards on either side. Not reckless endangerment.

People standing by, or being in the area is all the same. It's no more reckless, then if you are with a hunting party.

So, for firing within a city, if what's behind your target is sky, all prongs of wreckless endangerment are met. Your screwed.
If you are firing in a city and a house is behind your target, all prongs are met. Your screwed.
If you are firing in a city and the GROUND (dirt, not asphalt) is behind your target, it wouldn't meet that.


This is my logic-flow anyway. I mean, I've never heard of somebody become seriously injured by a shot aimed at the ground, unless it deflected off a serious rock.

[lourendo]

No, not cut and dry. It would be cut and dry if "reckless" wasn't in there.

Shooting guns in a densely populated residential neighborhood with many children in homes less than 20 feet away and shooting less than 10 feet from the OP's residence? All while INTOXICATED?

sounds pretty reckless to me.

[BlueTrooper]

It is unlawful to hunt for, shoot at, trap, take, chase or disturb wildlife within 150 yards of any occupied residence, camp, industrial or commercial building, farm house or farm building, or school or playground without the permission of the occupants. It is unlawful to shoot into a safety zone, even if you are outside of the zone.

Taken from the Pennsylvania Hunting & Trapping Digest.

The shooter may have been shooting at targets, so that removes the game law, but there should be town ordinances on discharging a weapon.

[AjentOranje]

Collegeville Ordinance prohibits firing guns in Borough.

http://keystatepub.com/keystate-pdf/...0Nuisances.pdf

I know this is an old post, but by your own link to the PDF, you missed the next paragraph....

Section 8-1022 Permissible use of weapons and firing or discharge
of projectiles.
(a) It shall be permissible for any person to maintain a
target range for the firing of certain weapons and the use of
instruments or devices by which a projectile may be fired or
discharged under the following conditions : (a) adequate safety
precautions have been taken to the satisfaction of the police and
the mayor ; and (b) permission of council shall have been granted
following recommendation by the police department and the mayor .
It shall not be a violation of this article for any person, with
permission of and under supervision of the operator of any such
approved firing range, to use that firing range for the purposes
for which authorization is given by council .

[FormerPaConstable]

thank you for the update...it actually gave me some more insight to my situation.
My property, which we've owned and shot guns in since 1966, is 26.5 acres
in a rural area outside Allentown, in the smallest borough in the state of Pa.
We were target shooting into a water-filled slate quarry that has 70' high walls around it
and is several 100' deep.
No ricochet has ever been seen in 47 years of shooting, and the anti-discharge ordinance
from 1956 forward was never enforced except within the proximity of the homes
along the 2 blocks on the Main St. (12 acres).
Nothing's changed are far as the houses proximity goes,
but the uppity neighbors don't like the shooting noise any more,
so the few times a year that it happens had to stop.
All nonsense.