With repeal, Warminster follows state lead on guns, but prefers their own fiefdom

[PocketProtector]

The solicitor should be removed for her STOOPID comment, "dictated to by the powerful gun lobby?"

No moron, it's the law !!


http://m.theintell.com/news/local/wi....html?mode=jqm


Warminster has repealed its ordinance prohibiting the carrying and discharge of firearms on township property, following a long list of municipalities that have taken similar measures to ward off potential litigation.


By doing so, the township is in accord with the state’s new Act 192 to ensure that firearms laws are uniform across the commonwealth.

Warminster’s move on Thursday night follows that of several other towns. If a municipality doesn’t comply, it could be taken to court by the National Rifle Association and other gun rights groups for regulating firearms. A municipality that loses a challenge to its firearms law is required to pay damages and legal fees to the winning side.

“This simply means that Warminster’s laws comply with the commonwealth’s,” Supervisor Tom Panzer said.

After the board voted 5-0 for the repeal, Mary Eberle, the township’s solicitor, said the board doesn’t have “a lot of discretion in this matter” and didn’t believe the move would compromise public safety.

“Before, you couldn’t carry a weapon in a public place under our ordinance,” she said. “Now you can with proper permits.”

In response to a resident’s complaint that the township is being “dictated” to by the powerful gun lobby, Eberle said, “Yes, it’s very disappointing for the state to impose regulations in what could happen on township-owned property, but it is what it is.”

Not all municipalities have allowed the state to take the lead on this issue. Philadelphia and Lancaster are suing in Commonwealth Court to overturn Act 192 on the grounds it was tacked onto legislation dealing with the theft of metals, in violation of the state constitutional requirement that a bill deal with a single subject.

While the appellate court has not yet ruled, the state Supreme Court in 2013 overturned a 2011 law allowing counties to abolish jury commissioners because it was added to an unrelated bill despite the single-subject rule. The Legislature had to pass a new law dealing solely with jury commissioners.

When Doylestown passed its repeal, Mayor Ron Strouse expressed outrage that the Legislature hampered the ability of municipalities to protect residents. The law “is virtually inviting lawsuits by citizens and organizations,” he said.

[twency]

The solicitor should be removed for her STOOPID comment, "dictated to by the powerful gun lobby?"

No moron, it's the law !!


http://m.theintell.com/news/local/wi....html?mode=jqm


Warminster has repealed its ordinance prohibiting the carrying and discharge of firearms on township property, following a long list of municipalities that have taken similar measures to ward off potential litigation.


By doing so, the township is in accord with the state’s new Act 192 to ensure that firearms laws are uniform across the commonwealth.

Warminster’s move on Thursday night follows that of several other towns. If a municipality doesn’t comply, it could be taken to court by the National Rifle Association and other gun rights groups for regulating firearms. A municipality that loses a challenge to its firearms law is required to pay damages and legal fees to the winning side.

“This simply means that Warminster’s laws comply with the commonwealth’s,” Supervisor Tom Panzer said.

After the board voted 5-0 for the repeal, Mary Eberle, the township’s solicitor, said the board doesn’t have “a lot of discretion in this matter” and didn’t believe the move would compromise public safety.

“Before, you couldn’t carry a weapon in a public place under our ordinance,” she said. “Now you can with proper permits.”

In response to a resident’s complaint that the township is being “dictated” to by the powerful gun lobby, Eberle said, “Yes, it’s very disappointing for the state to impose regulations in what could happen on township-owned property, but it is what it is.”

Not all municipalities have allowed the state to take the lead on this issue. Philadelphia and Lancaster are suing in Commonwealth Court to overturn Act 192 on the grounds it was tacked onto legislation dealing with the theft of metals, in violation of the state constitutional requirement that a bill deal with a single subject.

While the appellate court has not yet ruled, the state Supreme Court in 2013 overturned a 2011 law allowing counties to abolish jury commissioners because it was added to an unrelated bill despite the single-subject rule. The Legislature had to pass a new law dealing solely with jury commissioners.

When Doylestown passed its repeal, Mayor Ron Strouse expressed outrage that the Legislature hampered the ability of municipalities to protect residents. The law “is virtually inviting lawsuits by citizens and organizations,” he said.

Despite her best efforts she let the truth slip out. If repealing the ordinance won't impact public safety then what good was it doing? Why the fuss about being brought into compliance with preexisting state law?

[pennlineman]

Let us hope that the hoplophobes continue experience frustration in their unconstitutional agenda to control those who do not share their mental issue.

[BimmerJon]

“Before, you couldn’t carry a weapon in a public place under our ordinance,” she said. “Now you can with proper permits.”

And........ Still doesn't know the law

[thefirstndsecond]

Maybe posting the names and email addresses of those on the council
Might help.

This is a local town to me and I am interested in their politics.

[PocketProtector]

She doesn't like being dictated to by the "Powerful gun Lobby", aka "We the People"

Boonfreakinghoo

And she's a lawyer.

[jakebrake]

mary eberle is just another fine example of warminster going further and further to shit at it's finest.

this used to be a decent blue collar community.

it has become a ring around the collar community, and no one can figure out why.

[American1776]

The coverage of this new law in nearly all media has been disgraceful. They almost never explain that this law only enforces what is already state law.

It's always worded as 'new law allows gun people to sue a municipality over any gun law they don't like'. The spin is disgraceful.

[jakebrake]

The coverage of this new law in nearly all media has been disgraceful. They almost never explain that this law only enforces what is already state law.

It's always worded as 'new law allows gun people to sue a municipality over any gun law they don't like'. The spin is par for the course.

f.i.f.y.

[jakebrake]

if you think the media has been a pack of assholes about this, read what some of the town council turds have regurgitated on the subject.