State Constables, the best kept secret in PA.

[gnbrotz]

Instead of providing a citation, I'm just going to repeat what I said the first time.

The law says a natural born person can kill Constables on sight.

Does it feel any more true?

I'm not impressed. You offer a citation if asked for, then when asked for, you decline. I'm not saying you're wrong, just asking what you're using as the basis for your statement. If you're not willing to provide that, then maybe you shouldn't offer in the first place.

[pex]

I'm not impressed. You offer a citation if asked for, then when asked for, you decline. I'm not saying you're wrong, just asking what you're using as the basis for your statement. If you're not willing to provide that, then maybe you shouldn't offer in the first place.

I'm using nothing as a basis for my statement, just like anyone who posts here. That's why citations are useful. Surely you know this wouldn't be the first time in the thread someone has made statements of facts without qualifying them?

They apparently didn't realize the point of citations, and did exactly what I just did. Hopefully clarity by illustration makes it clear to them, even if you missed it.

[QuincyTwpConstable]

It's not about being funny (or even about my health). It's about this:

As a natural born citizen, the law says I can kill Constables on sight.

Will you take my word on that, or ask me to cite (possibly readily available) statute and/or case law (or any other supporting evidence) to this fact?

...

If you are telling us that one must be a resident (and/or registered voter) of the borough, township, or ward to which he will be elected, you need to point out the statute, case law, or anecdotes of de facto restriction.

Google: PA Constable Residence and you get this on the first page:

http://www.courts.state.pa.us/OpPost...t/2588CD00.pdf

That do it for you? I'm trying to be factual and helpful in limited time and your attitude is not helping.

[pex]

Google: PA Constable Residence and you get this on the first page:

http://www.courts.state.pa.us/OpPost...t/2588CD00.pdf

That do it for you? I'm trying to be factual and helpful in limited time and your attitude is not helping.

I guess you could have avoided my apparently impeding attitude by posting that the first time around, or after first being challenged. I don't think it would be common knowledge that residence in specific smallest-jurisdiction would be required, and after reading the information I came upon, nothing pointed to the same.

This means you either knew because you read this case law, which you should have posted in the first place, or you just heard it from a person who may or may not have had conclusive evidence.

Anyway, thanks for the update, I am reading now and the content is a bit of a concern.

[QuincyTwpConstable]

Seeing as I'm still online, I'll continue this conversation.

I didn't post it before because I knew it from training, but didn't have specific case references to cite. This is *not* the only one, the common law argumant is apparently well accepted as regards the office of Constable.

I posted factually correct information the first time and was challenged (not by you) as "not wanting competition" - not asked for citations. I am NOT a lawyer and am not going to spend a lot of time doing research for you; I'd appreciate the courtesy of assuming I know what I'm talking about and challenging me when your information is different, as you did when citing statutes.

"It's not about being funny (or even about my health). It's about this:

As a natural born citizen, the law says I can kill Constables on sight."

Is a load of garbage and you equated my statement to that lie. I suggest you restrict your "illustrations of absurdity by being absurd" to ones that don't imply felonious activity (including homicide) is legal.

[pex]

I'd appreciate the courtesy of assuming I know what I'm talking about

Maybe you didn't realize it, but you are posting on the internet. The presumption is that everyone is an anonymous troll, and there's no reason that isn't a reasonable expectation. You'll receive no such courtesy, as I or any other anonymous troll is unwilling to provide such a silly thing, and in similarly wanting to be taking at a higher value than 'general anecdote', I try to post citations alongside the factual statements I make, and encourage others to do the same.

You'll see I've done that.

As for my other claim, you'll notice I didn't post any citation. Maybe you shouldn't take it as the truth.

EDIT: I see the potential constable took this issue all the way to the PA SC: http://www.aopc.org/OpPosting/Suprem...-40-2003mo.pdf

She subsequently lost, although the court curiously acknowledged the opposite conclusion was found in "In re Request to Declare Vacancy for Office of Constable for the Precinct of Upper Oxford Township, Chester County Civil Division, No. 94-07542 (1995)" (that there is no residency requirement in 13PS2, qualifications for election.)

Another thing to note is that the court of common pleas did not deny the petition on its own -- the local DA opposed the fill of vacancy by the claim the common law requires residency.

[QuincyTwpConstable]

Maybe you didn't realize it, but you are posting on the internet. The presumption is that everyone is an anonymous troll, and there's no reason that isn't a reasonable expectation. You'll receive no such courtesy, as I or any other anonymous troll is unwilling to provide such a silly thing, and in similarly wanting to be taking at a higher value than 'general anecdote', I try to post citations alongside the factual statements I make, and encourage others to do the same.

I'll keep that in mind. If you look at the posting history or followed gnbrotz's ordeal, you might note that I was involved in that discussion, was at court in uniform in support of him, and visited with many of those that went to the hearing afterwards at Hoss' restaurant. Then again, looking at your posting history, you have a lot of time to post (1200+ since February?) and weren't necessarily here at that time.

Goodnight...

[djturnz]

I got his fax from the Elections Board, which I believe is the same case linked a posts up.

[pex]

I'll keep that in mind. If you look at the posting history or followed gnbrotz's ordeal, you might note that I was involved in that discussion, was at court in uniform in support of him, and visited with many of those that went to the hearing afterwards at Hoss' restaurant. Then again, looking at your posting history, you have a lot of time to post (1200+ since February?) and weren't necessarily here at that time.

Goodnight...

I don't ride on laurels, just the single per-post quality I can provide. I guess I could have made a username like PresidentOfTheUnitedStates or ChiefSupremeCourtJudge or SpeakerOfTheHouse or maybe just GunLawyer to give myself cred that I may not deserve.

I'm not really sure how gnbrotz's incident had relation to the requirement of residence for a constable. Maybe you refer to a greater issue of his being harassed by a constable, and that you must have some sort of irrefutable knowledge as a result.

I can't know you have that knowledge.

Consider not even the Internet but just real life, where we have a body of officers in the executive entrusted to know and enforce the law, yet will very readily (as a group) fail to disseminate correct law when prompted.

[sprat]

ok
seems that one has to be a resident, the court case doesn't refer to a state law as to what a resident is, the BATF says one can maintain a residence in Two seperate states and still purchase a handgun, so if someone lived/ resided in NJ, NY, Delaware, Maryland, Ohio and also own/resided a home in Pa( not a weekend home or mailing address) they could apply for the position in there repective county/township. that also goes for active military personnel, ans still meet the requirements

if one is already a corp or LLC then one does not need to form one to be a constable or buy class 3 items for that matter

I am just bouncing idea's around

sprat