Crichton-McCormick Park, Portage Boro in violation

[The_Game]

They're bureaucrats. I'd have to wager "Painfully"

[Statkowski]

Randy,

It is yet to be seen what the fate of the ordinance or law that you are referring to will be. At this point Council is deciding how this will be handled. However, it appears that since the Park is owned by the Borough it can establish rules not necessarily a law on what can and cannot be done on the property. The feeling is that there is no reason fire arms should be carried in the park being that the property is solely deeded for recreational purposes and children frequent the property. So in summary, I believe at this point the "rule" will remain in effect but the fate of the "law" is yet to be seen.

Bob

Dear Bob:

First, boroughs create ordinances; state legislature creates laws. Ordinances cannot be created or enforced in violation of such state law. The same holds true with so-called park regulations or rules, which may or may not be supported by any borough ordinance, but still must not be in violation of state law.

Your park rule, which probable predates the Commonwealth's Uniform Firearms Act, is currently in violation of Section 6120(a), which states: "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."

You state in your response to me that "since the Park is owned by the Borough it can establish rules not necessarily a law on what can and cannot be done on the property." It would be extremely unwise for a park or borough to establish rules not supported by ordinance or state law. Your statement, as written, essentially states that the borough doesn't care what state law is, the ordinance will still stand.

You further state, "The feeling is that there is no reason fire arms should be carried in the park being that the property is solely deeded for recreational purposes and children frequent the property." Whether "the feeling is" or "the property is solely deeded for recreational purposes" or "children frequent the property" is irrelavent to the issue at hand - the part of the ordinance/regulation/rule prohibiting firearms is in violation of state law.

I strongly recommend you forward this, and all previous correspondence, to your Borough Solicitor for his legal opinion. Should someone be cited for lawful possession of a firearm on borough property, the police officer would be subject to a criminal charge of Official Oppression and the Borough to a federal civil rights lawsuit.

Sincerely,

Randy

[Mtbkski]

It was a while ago that I started this. And it is time for me to follow thru and finish it.

I once more addressed an e-mail to the Borough Manager. I will see where it goes, and will take appropriate action from there.

Have to find out when the next borough meeting is. I may end up attending it. I think a stop at Haluski's Office which is in Portage might be a good idea too.

Sorry to dropping the ball on this one. I will see it thru.

[Mtbkski]

Anyone else would like to help me out by calling or e-mailing them. Here is the info I got off the internet. Any help and support would be appreciated. If more than just me is complaining. I'm sure they will have a hard time ignoring us.

The Borough Manager, Mr. Robert A. Koban, holds office hours each Tuesday and Thursday night from 6:30 p.m. until 10:00 p.m. or by appointment for residents of the Borough. Mr. Koban can be reached at the Administration Building, or by phone at 814/736-4330, or by e-mail at bkoban@comcast.net.

[Mtbkski]

Two days and no reply. I'll give him a week. Figure he is contemplating his actions.

Think I may have to attend a Borough Meeting soon though.

[TheF00L]

Post deleted by poster, as I am, doing to almost all my posts.

[Mtbkski]

There is power in numbers. I probably can do this alone. But it would be easier with help from all of you. I sure would appreciate if some of you were to help me in writting a quick e-mail to express your displeasure or to remind them that they are violating the law. The more pressure they get, the more likely they are to change things.

Please take a minute and send an e-mail letting them know you want the rule removed.


The Borough Manager, Mr. Robert A. Koban, e-mail at bkoban@comcast.net.

[Pastor Ron]

I see this thread is dated 2010..... I just joined PAFOA and would like to know what happened! Was this issue ever resolved?

[Mtbkski]

Nope, I wrote a couple e-mails to the Boro. But basically was just blown away. I never did follow up on it and attend a meeting like I wanted too.

If you want to follow up on this, I would be willing to jump on board with you and follow up on this.

[Mtbkski]

WOW, I GOT IT REMOVED, AND I HADN'T EVEN REALIZED IT.

Just called the Portage Boro Police to inquire about the rule against handguns at the park. He informed me that the rule had been removed and was no longer in effect. Guess my e-mails got thru to them after all.