What would (could) you do in this situation? "No Guns" signs at park far end..

[Hokkmike]

Went hiking in Rider Park near Williamsport, PA. At the parking area the signs clearly state no bicycles, no unleashed dogs, no hunting, no four wheelers, and no overnight camping.

OK, it doesn't say anything about carrying firearms. NOTHING except for the No Hunting and even there is depicted a picture of a crossbow.

After 4 miles plus into the hike the trail strays off private land on to State Game Land for just a little bit. Upon reentering the park area the trees suddenly become emblazoned with large orange signs that explicitly prohibit bringing/carrying firearms into the park.

Nothing at the parking area where the directions and trails are posted, as I said, but a boat load of signs after the hiking is well past mid point.

What is a person to do at that point? No choice really, but to continue on and if they are OCing or CCing just continue. I can see somebody being challenged by a park employee or volunteer who wants to make a stink about this.

Yes, sadly the solution will be to make more signs........

[jthrelf]

So this was a public park managed by a township or municipality?

Private propety is a different story, but for public parks, those prohibitions are null and void as per the UFA so I wouldn't worry at all.

[Hokkmike]

So this was a public park managed by a township or municipality?

Private propety is a different story, but for public parks, those prohibitions are null and void as per the UFA so I wouldn't worry at all.

Yeah, I thought about that too...thanks. I need to look into it. But, initially, I am thinking private as in no township or municipality.

[tl_3237]

So this was a public park managed by a township or municipality?

Private propety is a different story, but for public parks, those prohibitions are null and void as per the UFA so I wouldn't worry at all.

Preemption (18 Pa CS 6120) may be effective in general for Commonwealth governmental subdivisions when using their "police powers" in establishing punitive ordinances. However, as recently intimated in the Erie decision, those same subdivisions may retain the ability, under property rights (ownership or lessee), to proscribe activities in parks. Defying conditions of entry may be actionable under the Commonwealth Trespass statute (18 Pa CS 3503).

Per this decision, that's a moot point with respect to gun laws. Meaning that (as some of us understood all along) the municipality or any lessee of the land may not regulate with criminal ordinances the possession of firearms, but as hinted at by Footnote 9 (and all my previous posts on this) the owner/occupier of land has certain perks with respect to limiting the time and manner of use of the property, perks that are not dependent on any delegation of state authority.

So far as the broader question goes, I'd imagine that if I privately rented the city park for an event (it may or may not involve people dressed as Klingons or furries....), I would be allowed to institute policies that would facially violate the Bill of Rights, including limitations of speech, random security checks at the door, and whatever else I could cram down the throats of the attendees. Because the Bill of Rights isn't about the dirt underfoot, it's about the actors doing the deeds.

---------------------------------

9. Not raised by the City is Section 3710 of the Third Class City Code, Act of June 23, 1931, P.L. 932, as amended, 53 P.S. § 38710, which provides, in pertinent part, that the City “shall at all times be invested with the power and authority to adopt suitable rules and regulations concerning the use and occupation of [its] parks and playgrounds by the public generally․” It could be argued that the City may be empowered under that grant of power from the State to regulate the possession of firearms in its parks pursuant to its proprietary power to control conduct that takes place on its property rather than through an ordinance of general application enacted pursuant to its general police powers. Similarly, Section 11.215 of the regulations of the Commonwealth's Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, 17 Pa.Code § 11.215, generally prohibits “[p]ossessing an uncased device, or uncasing a device, including a firearm, ․ that is capable of discharging or propelling a projectile ․” in state parks, subject to a number of enumerated exceptions. - See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/pa-common....N8IJh8So.dpuf

^^^ 'footnote 9' inference from the Commonwealth Court in Justin DILLON, Appellant v. CITY OF ERIE. No. 1038 C.D.2013 (2014).

[TaePo]

Is it not possible that these signs are placed to remind hunters they are no longer on State Game Lands and that hunting operations should be suspended at that point? Not the best way of doing it admittedly (assuming other public lands and not private) but a possible explanation. Assuming the Game Lands share two (or even more) borders with the park, are there signs at other borders?

Thus I think the multiple signs were placed and in Blaze Orange, a color hunters are 'trained' to notice and definitely one that has almost no place in nature. This would help prevent hunters mistaking a fellow humanoid who is not in hunting attire (e.g. Blaze Orange) for game.

Perhaps the signs should have said no long guns or no hunting beyond this point. City park / End of State Game Lands. Clear all weapons.

[Rblakely]

There has been no attempt by any municipality to peruse a route alluded to in the Erie decision (it was dicta and has zero bearing on law). The Erie solicitor (the one who pursued the case against the members here) is on record stating he doesn't believe the dicta applies and will not pursue that route (I pasted his quote from the Erie paper in another thread). The only changes I am aware of, post Erie, that reference the Erie case have been the removal of signs from parks (2 that I am aware of). We are the only ones that keep bringing up footnote 9 and I wonder what the rational is......are we trying to call the wolf we were insisting was coming to prove a point?

[tl_3237]

There has been no attempt by any municipality to peruse a route alluded to in the Erie decision (it was dicta and has zero bearing on law). The Erie solicitor (the one who pursued the case against the members here) is on record stating he doesn't believe the dicta applies and will not pursue that route (I pasted his quote from the Erie paper in another thread). The only changes I am aware of, post Erie, that reference the Erie case have been the removal of signs from parks (2 that I am aware of). We are the only ones that keep bringing up footnote 9 and I wonder what the rational is......are we trying to call the wolf we were insisting was coming to prove a point?

Since you to did not give a link to the other thread I'm unclear as to the specific quote of the solicitor to which you refer. I did find a newspaper article which reported the following:

Commonwealth Court's president judge, Dan Pellegrini, wrote Tuesday's decision, which included a lengthy footnote about how the city may be able to regulate the use of guns in city parks under the state's Third Class City Code. Pellegrini also mentioned a state regulation that, he wrote, "generally prohibits" possessing a firearm in a state park, with a number of exceptions, such as for hunting.


The state law does not apply to municipal parks. Karle said he believes the Third Class City Code does not apply to the case over the gun ordinance.

Is that the quote to which you refer? If so, I don't interpret it to mean that the solicitor does not feel that a third class city could not use the hint in footnote 9 as a basis for a rule not born of the city's "police powers", to make firearm possession a contravention of a condition of entry to use the park. Remember that the case before the court was an ordinance with a penalty clause that the city established under their legislative/police powers; undoubtably that ordinance would be preempted by 6120 and footnote 9 would be inapplicable in that specific instance.

As to dicta was zero meaning, I defer to Gunlawyer's succinct opinion he provided to you in another thread:

You're essentially correct, Footnote 9 is dicta, meaning that it's a statement made that is not necessary to the disposition of the matter before the court.

However, the wise participants and bystanders pay attention to such hints. I won a criminal case one time solely because the ADA failed to pay attention to what the judge was hinting to us; the ADA focused on the facts of the case (my client was in undeniable possession of a prohibited offensive weapon), the judge was talking about the fairness of moving forward with prosecution in lieu of offering us ARD. The ADA stuck firm and refused to offer ARD, so I put forward evidence that facially could support an affirmative defense. We won. Because the other side ignored the hints.

Footnote 9 is a hint. It's "just dicta", but it's there for a reason. Ignore it at your peril.

***********

I don't know if we are the "only ones" identifying footnote 9 as a potential avenue for establishing a "No Firearm" rule for parks but I feel it would be a disservice to our members by failing to point out that advice such as:

So this was a public park managed by a township or municipality?

Private propety is a different story, but for public parks, those prohibitions are null and void as per the UFA so I wouldn't worry at all.

is not without some legal risk.

Even before the Erie decision we did have a similar situation occurring in Chester County parks. I have personally noted in a CC Park that I frequent that they are posted "No Firearms ". We also have the opinion of the 2011 solicitor for the county that cited the County Code as a basis, very similar to footnote 9, for the rule citing the counties property rights. This was expressed in an email to another member of PAFOA:

The County Commissioners have asked me to respond to your e-mail of March 31, 2011.

The section of the crimes code you cite, 18 PaCSA sec. 6120, does not apply to a County Park. That section only prohibits a local government from regulating firearms throughout its geographical boundaries. County Parks are real estate owned by the County. As such the County may impose regulations regarding use of a Park and what can and cannot be brought onto a County Park. The County Code specifically empowers the County Commissioners to manage and supervise its parks. The section of the crimes code you cite does not repeal this portion of the County Code. Therefore, the park regulations will remain in force.

http://forum.pafoa.org/chester-16/91...ml#post1894399

Unfortunately, without a court decision regarding an actual application of the statute referenced in footnote 9 and similar statutes applying to other than Third Class Cities, we are left with some graying of the legality line for park rules banning firearms.

[GunLawyer001]

There has been no attempt by any municipality to peruse a route alluded to in the Erie decision (it was dicta and has zero bearing on law). The Erie solicitor (the one who pursued the case against the members here) is on record stating he doesn't believe the dicta applies and will not pursue that route (I pasted his quote from the Erie paper in another thread). The only changes I am aware of, post Erie, that reference the Erie case have been the removal of signs from parks (2 that I am aware of). We are the only ones that keep bringing up footnote 9 and I wonder what the rational is......are we trying to call the wolf we were insisting was coming to prove a point?

The rationale is that PAFOA is known as a source of accurate facts and law, particularly related to firearms. Stating that preemption definitely bars non-penal rules on municipal property is NOT accurate, and needs to be corrected.

The Erie decision not only didn't confirm that non-penal policies are preempted, the judges went out of their way to clarify that the ruling against the penal statute had no bearing on non-penal rules. It was the equivalent of someone saying "You may not enter the premises Monday through Friday, but I'm not saying that you can't come in on Saturday or Sunday." There's usually a point to adding such a caveat.

If someone makes a false claim, don't blame the people correcting that false claim.

[jerkin]

There has been no attempt by any municipality to peruse a route alluded to in the Erie decision (it was dicta and has zero bearing on law). The Erie solicitor (the one who pursued the case against the members here) is on record stating he doesn't believe the dicta applies and will not pursue that route (I pasted his quote from the Erie paper in another thread). The only changes I am aware of, post Erie, that reference the Erie case have been the removal of signs from parks (2 that I am aware of). We are the only ones that keep bringing up footnote 9 and I wonder what the rational is......are we trying to call the wolf we were insisting was coming to prove a point?

I wonder what the rational is for those of us that ignore footnote 9 like it doesn't exist and is meaningless.

[Pilot321]

Hence the bullet holes in the sign.