Conflict of law?

[John_Wick]

Our local recreation trail has the associated township ordinances posted at the main parking areas for the trail. One section reads:

No person shall do, cause to be done or permit to be done any of the acts specified in this Section:

L. Personal Conduct.

(6) No person shall bring into or upon the trail, nor have in his possession, nor discharge, or set off anywhere upon said properties, a revolver, pistol, shotgun, rifle, air rifle, air gun or any gun, rifle firearm or bow or other weapon that discharges projectiles either by air, explosive substance or by any other force. Except that this Section shall not apply to any employee or enforcement officer while carrying out the duties and responsibilities of his position.

§ 16-105 Penalties and Arrests.

Any person, firm or corporation who shall violate any provision of this Part, upon conviction thereof in an action brought before a district justice in the manner provided for the enforcement of summary offenses under the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure, shall be sentenced to pay a fine of not more than $1,000 plus costs and, in default of payment of said fine and costs, to a term of imprisonment not to exceed 90 days. Each day that a violation of this Part continues or each section of this Part which shall be found to have been violated shall constitute a separate offense.

Nonetheless, hunting is permitted on the trail. In fact, there are signs at every lot and street crossing explicitly stating such. Hunting is done in the wooded areas alongside the trail, but the only way to access these areas is via the trail on which users are prohibited from carrying a firearm. Now to my knowledge no one is hassling any hunters or calling the police, but the law is there should the police choose to apply it. So just out of curiosity, is there any Pennsylvania case law regarding conflict of law within a single jurisdiction in regards to firearms?

[JaySmith]

The current administration would prefer you not ask these kinds of questions.

[ImminentDanger]

Our local recreation trail has the associated township ordinances posted at the main parking areas for the trail. One section reads:

The Pennsylvania section of PAFOA has these Sticky Threads:

Municipalities in violation of §6120 (Preemption)
https://forum.pafoa.org/showthread.php?t=114022

How can I change a preemption violation?
https://forum.pafoa.org/showthread.php?t=29704

If you search for "preemption violation" I'm sure you'll find plenty of examples and responses.

...

[GunLawyer001]

There is no conflict, PA's preemption bars any governmental unit from criminalizing the use or possession of firearms in any way. So the local ordinance is void.

Now, if the OWNER of land has a POLICY barring possession of guns on property he or it owns, WITHOUT using delegated govt power to punish it, that's probably different, as I've been saying here for at least 16 years. But the moment the local satrap seeks to use their limited police power to have cops arrest you and courts to try you over something which is not illegal under Commonwealth law, they hit the preemption, and they lose. Bigly.

The test is whether Walmart could have the same policy in their stores, or you could do it for your back yard. Yes, Walmart can refuse entry to people with guns, but Walmart can't make it a summary offense. Only a govt entity or subdivision can do that, and state preemption bars local regulation of guns.

That being said, if the owner of property demands that you vacate the property for any reason, including "you have a gun" or "you wore white after Labor Day", you are presumed to be obliged to leave, lest you violate the trespassing laws.

[Spaceballs]

That being said, if the owner of property demands that you vacate the property for any reason, including "you have a gun" or "you wore white after Labor Day", you are presumed to be obliged to leave, lest you violate the trespassing laws.

The important part is that you would be violating trespassing laws, not gun laws.

The other important part is that you would fully deserve it. White after Labor Day is so tacky.

[esh21167]

See ya' in court. You would win. But it wouldn't even get that far. They are just pushing the envelope to see how far they can go before getting their hands slapped.

[Walleye Hunter]

See ya' in court. You would win. But it wouldn't even get that far. They are just pushing the envelope to see how far they can go before getting their hands slapped.

Them/they/it who posted it might not even know that they are in the wrong.

[jthrelf]

Them/they/it who posted it might not even know that they are in the wrong.

Yup whenever I see a pre emotion violation like this, j just email the township and let them know. Usually the response is pretty positive and I've gotten quite a few changed.

[Walleye Hunter]

Yup whenever I see a pre emotion violation like this, j just email the township and let them know. Usually the response is pretty positive and I've gotten quite a few changed.

Stunning and brave, safe and effective.

[Coops]

No person shall do, cause to be done or permit to be done any of the acts specified in this Section:

How does one permit another to act or not act? The way this is written, If you are on the trail at the same time as a person carrying a firearm and you did nothing to stop them, you are in violation. That cannot be right.