College Township (Centre Co.) Violation

[Xringshooter]

The townships here in the Centre Region all have ordinances that do not allow the carry of guns in their parks. Since I am a resident of College Township I am first going to questions their specific ordinance. I will then address the overall ordinance written by the Centre Region Council of Governments (COG), which comprises all the townships.

Here is what I am going to send. Please read and comment so that I can send the strongest letter possible.

The only thing I'm not sure of is whether or not to add in that I am a member of PaFOA. I don't want it to seem that I am representing them.

Thanks for you inputs, wordsmith as you think might help.



College Township
Council Chairman
1481 E. College Avenue
State College, PA 16801

Dear Chairman Klees:

I am writing to the council and you to bring to your attention a township park ordinance that appears not to be in compliance with state law.

According to the College Township, Centre County, Pennsylvania Ordinance O-06-17 Parks Ordinance Section 139-3 (Prohibited conduct) paragraph F:

“Firearms, weapons, etc. No person shall have in his possession, bring into or use in any park, whether carried concealed or carried open, any firearms, slingshots, firecrackers, fireworks or other missile-propelling devices or explosives or arrows (except as allowed in a designated archery area) or other dangerous weapons which have such properties as to cause annoyance or injury to any person or property, except for hunting in those areas and with the provisions specifically designated and approved by resolution of the College Township Council.”

It is my understanding that the firearms prohibition portion of O-06-17 is not in compliance with Title 18, Chapter 61, subchapter A (otherwise known as The Uniform Firearms Act). Subsection 6120 of the Uniform Firearms Act states:

”General rule: No county, municipality or township may in any manner regulate the lawful ownership, possession, transfer or transportation of firearms, ammunition or ammunition components when carried or transported for purposes not prohibited by the laws of this commonwealth.”

The preemption statute quoted was passed in 1995. I am unsure when O-06-17 was originally passed. However, since there is no grandfathering of existing limitations, a portion O-06-17 is not in compliance with Pennsylvania's Uniform Firearms Act as the Townships ordinance presently reads.

The preemption statute quoted is very important for all citizens who legally carry a firearm, not just Pennsylvanians; it removes the problem of a traveling or visiting citizen of running afoul of a myriad of local laws prohibiting where they may and may not carry a firearm. In other words, citizens who can legally carry firearms in Pennsylvania may carry firearms in any location not prohibited by state law.

It seems to me that, as it stands, the current prohibition puts the township in a position to potentially become civilly liable should this ordinance result in what would, in effect, would be a false arrest.

As a side note, Allegheny County had a similarly worded firearm ordinance that was not in compliance with the UFA. They amended their county parks regulations to comply with state law to avoid a possible lawsuit or litigation cost arising from possible enforcement of the then illegal ordinance.

As a resident, tax payer, and active voter of College Township, I respectfully ask that the Council please review this ordinance and amend it to comply with Pennsylvania State law.

I thank you for your time and look forward to your prompt response.


Sincerely,
Ronald J. Lutz
United States Air Force, Retired

[Jorg Schlagzeuger]

Good work - a well written, professional-sounding letter.

A couple clerical comments:
Include "Dear" in your greeting, and end with a colon rather than a comma (commas are for informal, friendly letters, whereas the colon is traditionally used for a more formal writing.)

A few paragraphs in it reads "I had became" - it sounds like you changed your tense while you were writing. Adjust to "I became" or "I had become" depending on what you're trying to say.

I'm unsure about the inclusion of the PAFOA reference. Perhaps getting to know the recipient's views & positions on such things in general (if they're any different than what's indicated by this silly local ordinance) might help to determine which way to go.

[Xringshooter]

Thanks Jorg,
This is what I wanted. Sometimes you look at something so many times that it doesn't look wrong. That's why I wanted others to look it over. What is obvious to you I may not have seen.

[velkly]

Very nicely done. Including PAFOA seems more of a name dropping issue than increasing the validity of the letter. I would exclude the reference and let the remarks ride upon your county of residency and state law.

Again, very nice job.

[angus]

Great letter; rep sent. You may want to consider omitting the sentence about how you became aware of the violation-- I don't think it adds anything and detracts slightly from your otherwise tightly wrapped message.

[God's Country]

You may want to mention that as it stands the current prohibition puts the township in a position for being potentially civilly liable should this ordinance result in what in affect would be a false arrest.

Not that you are seeking a lawsuit, but IMO most local governments yawn when citizens voice concern about there CYA policies poorly written by their solicitors. That just might grab their attention.

[Xringshooter]

You may want to mention that as it stands the current prohibition puts the township in a position for being potentially civilly liable should this ordinance result in what in affect would be a false arrest.

Not that you are seeking a lawsuit, but IMO most local governments yawn when citizens voice concern about there CYA policies poorly written by their solicitors. That just might grab their attention.

Good point. I'll add it as a line. I'm editing the original so if I put something in and the majority don't think it's necessary then I can take it back out before doing the final print.

[FNG19]

Highlights in red, comments below the highlights

I am writing to you and the council to bring to your attention a township park regulation that appears to be in violation of state law.

I believe the correct phrasing is "to the council and you", but this always gets me. Also, it's an "ordnance", as you quote below, not a regulation.

However, since there is no grandfathering of existing limitations, therefore as it stands, a portion O-06-17 is in violation of Pennsylvania's Uniform Firearms Act.

This is an awkward phrase. I would consider dropping the "therefore".

It seems to me, that as it stands, the current prohibition puts the township in a position for being potentially, civilly liable should this ordinance result in what, in effect, would be a false arrest.

Change this to "me that," -- note the shift of the comma. Also, it may put them in a position "to potentially become civilly liable".

I thank you for your time and look forward to (or would saying ...your time and await... be better??) your prompt response.

"Look forward" requires action. "Await" means you'll twiddle your thumbs. I like the former much better.

Thanks for writing the letter!

[WhiteFeather]

Xringshooter nice letter

I would like to suggest adding the following, plus a including possible wording to correct the regulation to be in alignment with state law, it makes there job easier or gives them a starting point to work from for their lawyers

As a side note, Allegheny County had a similar worded firearm ordinance that was in violation of the UFA, they amended their county park regulations to be in compliance with state law to avoid a possible lawsuit or litigation cost arising from possible enforcement of this illegal ordinance.

I tend to over word items, so word smith / craft as required to make the point with the carrot and the stick approach. When is comes to spending money in a court case it gets people attention so offering a way to avoid that pain is a good approach.

Send your letter registered with return receipt, it also gets elected people attention, puts you in a different class of citizen on response level.

As already mentioned PAFOA is not required, a tax payer - voter carry more weight.

[arrrrgh15]

Ron:

Great catch and good work on the letter! As a fellow College Township and Centre Reagion resident, I have the same concerns you do.

If you don't mind, I'm going to pass your letter on to some folks that may be able to help out a bit.

Steve.