Ellwood City, PA Bans firearms in Bourough Building

[Chazman321]

Story on Ellwood City Gun Ban - New Castle News

Must read...

[Emptymag]

Viccari said the ordinance has nothing to do with forbidding residents from owning guns. He said council has a right to prohibit anyone other than police officers from carrying weapons onto borough-owned property.

Correction... They THINK they have the right to prohibit anyone other than police officers from carrying weapons onto borough-owned property.

Gotta love the complete arrogance in those quotes too!

[XD45]

ellwood city politicians are a joke to say the least...

[ChamberedRound]

Correction... They THINK they have the right to prohibit anyone other than police officers from carrying weapons onto borough-owned property.

Last time I checked, borough-owned property is PUBLIC property, as THE PEOPLE are the ones who paid for it. Now I know it has been discussed ad nauseum in other threads (see the "Limerick Town Council Violates Preemption" thread) that administrators, i.e. elected representatives, of public land can manage it as private property. However, I have a hard time accepting a municipal building as private property when such a place wouldn't exist without the support and money of the people.

I also love this paraphrase from the Borough Manager:

Viccari said the ordinance has nothing to do with forbidding residents from owning guns. He said council has a right to prohibit anyone other than police officers from carrying weapons onto borough-owned property.

Mr. Viccari and the rest of the Ellwood City Town Council needs to be reminded by their citizens that the preemption statement of the UFA protects more than just gun ownership from local government (emphasis added):

“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.”

AFAIK lawful carry, open or concealed, of a lawfully owned firearm is not prohibited by the laws of this Commonwealth.

[KeithPA]

The only way for them to pull that is if the Courthouse is in the Bourough Building.

[Riss]

They had a rather large sign inside that warns of possession of a firearm inside the building. I never have read the entire thing. Too busy trying to get in and out of the building.

[craigc]

Not to hi-jack but our court house is in our Boro's new facility so that means off limits?

[ChamberedRound]

Not to hi-jack but our court house is in our Boro's new facility so that means off limits?

It likely means off limits, as state law lists courthouses as prohibited for carry. However, it also specifies that courthouses are to provide lockers for safe storage of firearms that are carried to the building and declared at the door.

[KeithPA]

Not to hi-jack but our court house is in our Boro's new facility so that means off limits?

Our Sheriff's office is in the courthouse. They are interconnected and in the same building. There is only one entrance, so it is secured by deputies. Even if your new facility is in the same building, it may or may not be.
It all depends on where they located the security screening. Some cities facilities were set up the same way as ours, it was challenged in court and it was upheld that it was legal being set up like our courthouse. This is the only type of successful way of a city regulating firearms, if another deparment is in a courthouse.

[MarcS]

Correction... They THINK they have the right to prohibit anyone other than police officers from carrying weapons onto borough-owned property.

Gotta love the complete arrogance in those quotes too!

Government doesn't have rights. People, on the other hand, do.