Results 1 to 10 of 13
-
August 4th, 2013, 12:11 PM #1Senior Member
- Join Date
- Aug 2009
- Location
-
Cresco,
Pennsylvania
(Monroe County) - Age
- 35
- Posts
- 341
- Rep Power
- 13204
"Roof" Park in Paradise PA in Violation of UFA
Here is the email I just sent to the township supervisors:
This was brought to my attention. I hope you can inform me whatever its been changed or not, but I was given the rules for the "Roof" park and it looks like the following rule is in violation of the UFA (Uniform Firearms Act).
§ 93-3. Prohibited conduct. [Amended 3-2-1993 by Ord. No. 109]
Carry or discharge any firearms, slingshots, firecrackers, fireworks or other missile propelling instruments or explosives or
arrows, or other dangerous weapons which have such properties as to cause annoyance or injury to any person or property, unless
permission has been granted by the Board of Supervisors in designated areas; police officers in the performance of their duties
will be exempt from these provisions.
The firearms prohibition portion of these rules are in violation of Title 18, Chapter 61, subchapter A (otherwise known as The Uniform Firearms Act) specifically subsection 6120 which states: "General rule: 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.”
Please let me know your opinion on this and I would be happy to bring this up at the next township meeting.
Thanks,
Matt Ross
Auditor, Paradise Township
-
August 4th, 2013, 07:59 PM #2Banned
- Join Date
- Dec 2012
- Location
-
Mechanicsburg,
Pennsylvania
(Cumberland County) - Age
- 37
- Posts
- 2,109
- Rep Power
- 0
Re: "Roof" Park in Paradise PA in Violation of UFA
So I guess they technically barred even licensed individuals from being able to carry in a public park?
I guess they would need to redo that law or in reality remove it all together. I mean there is already laws in the books for discharging projectiles recklessly in practically any location since you are likely to damage something or hurt someone over breaking some silly ordinance.
-
August 5th, 2013, 07:53 AM #3Junior Member
- Join Date
- Jan 2013
- Location
-
Saxonburg,
Pennsylvania
(Butler County) - Age
- 41
- Posts
- 14
- Rep Power
- 0
Re: "Roof" Park in Paradise PA in Violation of UFA
Goodluck with you actions. hopefuly they go as smooth as mine did
-
August 5th, 2013, 08:19 AM #4Grand Member
- Join Date
- Jun 2007
- Location
-
PA,
Pennsylvania
(Delaware County) - Posts
- 3,604
- Rep Power
- 1246703
Re: "Roof" Park in Paradise PA in Violation of UFA
Discharge can be regulated
"Carry" needs to be removed
-
August 5th, 2013, 09:59 AM #5
Re: "Roof" Park in Paradise PA in Violation of UFA
RIP: SFN, 1861, twoeggsup, Lambo, jamesjo, JayBell, 32 Magnum, Pro2A, mrwildroot, dregan, Frenchy, Fragger, ungawa, Mtn Jack, Grapeshot, R.W.J., PennsyPlinker, Statkowski, Deanimator, roland, aubie515
Don't end up in my signature!
-
August 5th, 2013, 01:28 PM #6
-
August 5th, 2013, 03:06 PM #7
Re: "Roof" Park in Paradise PA in Violation of UFA
The municipality can on prohibit hunting if the park is completely with the confines of the Game Law safety zones.
Northampton VS Duff
It is crystal clear that the Game Commission is charged with the enforcement of all laws in the Commonwealth relating to hunting and the management of game. Local police are also empowered to assist in the enforcement of the Game Law including any alleged violation of the 150 yard "safety zone". Also, it is quite clear that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania through the legislative enactment of the Game Law has provided a general tenor indicating an intention on the part of the Commonwealth that it should not be supplemented by municipal bodies and local legislation. Thus, the Pennsylvania General Assembly has determined that the Game Commission is authorized to regulate hunting and trapping activities within this Commonwealth and the promotion of public safety related thereto. It can only be concluded that the legislature has preempted the field of public safety and the regulation of hunting and trapping by providing the authority and the means for the Game Commission to promote public safety.
In view of the conclusion we have reached that the subject matter of the Ordinance has been preempted by the state legislative enactment of the Game Law which empowers the Game Commission to regulate hunting throughout the Commonwealth, we need not consider the Petitioner's alternative argument that the Ordinance is invalid as an unreasonable exercise of the police power under Section 702 of The Second Class Township Code.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Relying primarily on the Ashenfelder case "In our view, the Township somewhat inflates the legislative delegation of police power under Section 702 [Section 65747]. An examination of Section 702 [of a second class township code] indicates that its language is most inappropriate and inadequate to evidence any intent on the part of the legislature to delegate to second class townships vast and extensive police powers; certainly no intent is manifest or evident to grant powers to second class townships to act in areas where the Commonwealth itself, through legislative enactments [Game Law], has provided regulation." 413 Pa. at 522, 198 A.2d at 516 (footnote omitted).
- - - - - - - - - - - - End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To summarize, the basic purpose of the Game Law is to create comprehensive and uniform regulation of hunting throughout the Commonwealth. The legislation does not suggest that it intended to regulate the area of hunting through a patchwork of municipal regulations. The problem of hunting wild game with weapons must be uniform and comprehensive, else chaos, confusion and danger to the public would result. To permit each municipality to enact its own laws and regulations would create a lattice of additional rules as to when and where hunting would be permissible and would be in direct opposition to the legislative mandate. To permit each municipality to pass its own version of the Game Law would prevent the Game Commission from freely utilizing its experienced decision-making powers in determining the appropriate balance between the rights of hunters to hunt, the control of wild game and the safety of the citizens of this Commonwealth.
Order reversed.
Order
And Now, this 15th day of October, 1987, the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County is reversed.RIP: SFN, 1861, twoeggsup, Lambo, jamesjo, JayBell, 32 Magnum, Pro2A, mrwildroot, dregan, Frenchy, Fragger, ungawa, Mtn Jack, Grapeshot, R.W.J., PennsyPlinker, Statkowski, Deanimator, roland, aubie515
Don't end up in my signature!
-
August 6th, 2013, 05:42 PM #8
Re: "Roof" Park in Paradise PA in Violation of UFA
That case had nothing to do with a Township's power, or lack of it, to regulate the use of township property. The Township in question had set their own rules regarding safty zones throughout the township and were not allowing property owners to hunt their own property. Your selective quotes certainly support your argument. I suppose that's why you chose them. They are very misleading.
-
August 6th, 2013, 06:53 PM #9
Re: "Roof" Park in Paradise PA in Violation of UFA
The court ruled that the municipalities cannot make laws affecting hunting. Which already gave the appealing party the win, so they declined to rule on it any further.
The statewide standard is 150yds for firearm hunting and 50yds for archery. The municipalities can enforce those yardage violations, but they cannot increase or decrease the distances.
It doesn't matter whether it is the townships property. The mere fact that they created an ordinance governing hunting is all that matters.RIP: SFN, 1861, twoeggsup, Lambo, jamesjo, JayBell, 32 Magnum, Pro2A, mrwildroot, dregan, Frenchy, Fragger, ungawa, Mtn Jack, Grapeshot, R.W.J., PennsyPlinker, Statkowski, Deanimator, roland, aubie515
Don't end up in my signature!
-
August 6th, 2013, 07:13 PM #10
Re: "Roof" Park in Paradise PA in Violation of UFA
Passing ordinances regulating hunting within the township, and Making regulations regarding the use of Township Park property are two very different things. I'm curious, since the court sided against the Township, why do you think the Northampton Township park regulations still do not allow hunting?
Similar Threads
-
"Not very fast, but some are furious" - US Park Police lose track of weapons
By Silence Dogood in forum NationalReplies: 1Last Post: June 28th, 2013, 05:58 PM -
Upper Macungie bars some trucks from certain roads (and "fixes" their park rules)
By Statkowski in forum PennsylvaniaReplies: 0Last Post: December 8th, 2012, 11:30 AM -
Long's Park (Lancaster) Rules: "No Firearms..."
By rikilii in forum Concealed & Open CarryReplies: 13Last Post: July 1st, 2012, 09:13 PM -
Thompson "Gun Show Paradise"
By Montanya in forum GeneralReplies: 0Last Post: November 25th, 2007, 03:30 PM
Bookmarks