"Municipal authority" operating county-owned land preemption? - E-MAIL sent!

[bac0nfat]

I want the email address of this person.

Abrahamsen, Thomas <tabrahamsen@chesco.org>

ETA: His phone number is 610-344-6197

I already sent him this email a while back:

Thomas,

This email is in response to an email you sent to an individual regarding the unlawful ordinance prohibiting the carry of firearms in county parks. This is what you said:

"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."

Let me remind you the word of the law that is in question:

(a) 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.

Your argument is that the Pennsylvania UFA doesn't specifically repeal "this portion of the county code." It does, however, specifically prohibit the regulation of firearms "IN ANY MANNER." The law could not be any more clear. Pennsylvania state law trumps any local ordinance. Any law that is in violation of the UFA is null and void, and completely unenforceable.

Thank you for your time.

-************

[IronSight]

I remember that, was that the end of it?

Currently unresolved, that solicitor is stubborn and his ONLY argument is that the law just "doesn't apply" and that the rules on statutory construction backing up that statute also "don't apply".

Other county officials seem wholly uninterested in addressing the issue.

The issue is still being worked on.

[ByblosHex]

Email sent

[Eskimo]

Holy thread-jack!

[IronSight]

Holy thread-jack!

good point, I won't post anything more about that in this thread

[Eskimo]

It's all good, I just wanted to make sure people were actually looking at my issue here, and not getting confused by the other issue. - They're both equally bad!

[jerkin]

I was really hoping that the park was just a rumor, guess not. Trevorton is a nice place as is, they will ruin it if they open a park.

[B92G]

If it makes you guys feel better, i have a private range near A proposed offroad park in my area that would be happy to invite members to use if problems arise from said park . If the planned park goes through and anyone wants,they are welcome to shoot to start/finish off a day of offroading and enjoy some relaxed range time an not have to worry about being on public land . its not big range , but it works.

[Smith40]

Can you post contact information? I'd like to respond to to this issue

[Eskimo]

I was really hoping that the park was just a rumor, guess not. Trevorton is a nice place as is, they will ruin it if they open a park.

This park will infuse the area with millions in revenue and end to the illegal dumping that's occurring now. In addition, if the park doesn't open, that land that people like so much is going to be closed to everyone - it's not going to continue the way it is.

But there is going to be hunting allowed, and there's I think 2 months they said where it will be closed for everything except hunting.

Ruin it? Hardly. it's ruined right now.

Can you post contact information? I'd like to respond to to this issue

I'd rather not bombard them with e-mail, especially if who I sent it to isn't the right person. But if you don't want to wait to see what my letter gets from them, I went here: http://www.anthraciteadventure.com/pages/ContactUs.aspx and sent my email to Kathy.