Preemption Violation - Need Some Advice

[volanova]

So, I recently contacted the Westtown township manager with the following email regarding their prohibition on possession of firearms in township parks. Here's what I wrote:

Hello Mr. Layman,

Thank you so much for your prompt reply. I greatly appreciate you
reaching out to me to take the time to discuss this matter.
Specifically, my concern is regarding Chapter 113, Section 1,
Subsection N of the Township Code, which reads as follows:

"No person, other than an officer of the law, shall carry or discharge
a weapon within the limits of the parks."

This subsection of the Township Code is in violation Title 18, Chapter
61, Subchapter A of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, commonly
referred to as the Uniform Firearms Act (UFA). Specifically I am
referencing Subsection 6120, which reads as follows:

"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."

This law was enacted in 1995 to help standardize firearms regulations
across the Commonwealth, preventing otherwise law abiding individuals
from becoming criminals simply by crossing through township lines. I
understand that the Westtown code may simply predate the UFA, however,
there is no grandfather clause in the act allowing preexisting codes
to maintain precedence.

It is easy to wonder why one would wish to carry a firearm in
Westtown's beautiful parks. It may be simply the habit of an
individual who carries either openly or concealed upon their person
daily, or an individual concerned about their safety while using the
more secluded areas of the park. Regardless of the reasons though,
individuals may possess firearms while making use of public township
owned parks and facilities except when expressly prohibited by state
law. Any township codes or regulations that state the contrary are in
violation of Pennsylvania state law.

I respectfully request that you look into this matter, and I look
forward to hearing back from you with any updates or follow ups.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions on this
matter.

Kindest regards,
<name redacted>

He stated that he'd bring this up with the township solicitor and would get back to me. After a couple of weeks, I got the following reply:

<name redacted>,

Thanks for the reminder. Actually, I was about to get back to you on
this.
I have discussed this matter with the Township Solicitor who has
researched the issues raised by your contention that the ordinance violates
state law. Our conclusion is that the Westtown Township ordinance
prohibiting carrying or discharging a weapon in a Township park does not
violate the Uniform Firearms Act, section6120(a) and is not preempted
thereby. The ban on possession of a firearm in a public park does not impact
ownership, possession, transfer or transportation of firearms in a
meaningful way and does not constitute regulation thereof. Further, we
believe our ordinance is not invalidated by constitutional guarantees.

I'm afraid that continuing an "I'm right, you're wrong," argument will not be helpful. Does anyone have any advice on how to proceed here? I'd like to present a more cited and cogent argument than "I think the township's attorney is mistaken in his or her reading of the law. The township ordinance limits lawful possession on government property, which is a limit on possession, which to me is a violation."

[Emptymag]

Good for you for taking the initiative.

Unfortunately, I have no idea how to tactfully tell someone who is wrong, but insists that they are right, that they need to get their head out of their ass.

Many have been there before and hopefully can offer some assistance!


ETA: Since this is in a section that nobody looks at, be prepared to bump it for exposure.

[BimmerJon]

The ban on possession of a firearm in a public park does not impact
ownership, possession, transfer or transportation of firearms in a
meaningful way and does not constitute regulation thereof.

Just reading this statement immediately gives me the impression that the person who wrote it lacks proper education and common sense.

The ban on possession of a firearm does not impact possession?

A third grader could explain the fallacy and contradiction in that statement.

Perhaps inform him by example of the dozens of other townships and solicitors that were able to properly read the law and reversed their park statutes to close the window of township liability in facing lawsuits.

Let's put a list together of all these reversals and then send to him.
If that doesn't work, I will personally travel to this park OC'ing if others will join with me to get these illegal laws the proper media attention it deserves

[volanova]

Just reading this statement immediately gives me the impression that the person who wrote it lacks proper education and common sense.

The ban on possession of a firearm does not impact possession?

A third grader could explain the fallacy and contradiction in that statement.

Perhaps inform him by example of the dozens of other townships and solicitors that were able to properly read the law and reversed their park statutes to close the window of township liability in facing lawsuits.

Let's put a list together of all these reversals and then send to him.
If that doesn't work, I will personally travel to this park OC'ing if others will join with me to get these illegal laws the proper media attention it deserves

It does seem quite obvious, doesn't it?

My initial thought on how to approach this was to give him a list of other townships that have had similar laws restricting possession in township parks that summarily removed these restrictions after being informed of the laws.

Suggestions for where this has happened? I'll do some searching myself but I'd also like to hear from anyone who has successfully challenged this type of ordinance in another township.

As an aside, I also have a very similarly worded communication out to the Willistown Township manager because of a nearly identical law on the books there. He was checking with their solicitor, and I haven't heard back from him yet. I just sent a request for an update on Friday, so I hope to hear something in a couple of days. I am more concerned there because I use Willistown's preserves for trail running, and would like to carry since there is at least one that I regularly use (Okehocking) that allows unleashed dogs and has quite a few very isolated spots.

[BimmerJon]

A list of these would be a powerful document moving forward. Every statute reversed would make future ones easier to turn...

Tried this search

http://forum.pafoa.org/search.php?searchid=4721156

[Gripsafety]

I'm afraid that continuing an "I'm right, you're wrong," argument will not be helpful. Does anyone have any advice on how to proceed here? I'd like to present a more cited and cogent argument than "I think the township's attorney is mistaken in his or her reading of the law. The township ordinance limits lawful possession on government property, which is a limit on possession, which to me is a violation."

Right now there is no consequence to the township for sticking with this and making anyone who wants to challenge it spend considerable money and time to do so. As you say, continuing an argument with the Township Manager is probably futile.

A possible next move would be to appear and present at a Board of Supervisors meeting. IMO, it's probably much better if a resident of the township does this, armed with facts and previous court decisions. This gets it into the minutes and pretty much forces some kind of discussion. If nothing else, the outcome will be public record.

Last year we had a chance to fix this with HB 273. The house leadership failed to advance it to a vote. This was ready to go. We may get a shot at it in the next session, but we have to work hard at influencing every decision that is made, starting whom the new leadership will be. You can certainly bet that Ceasefire PA will be working hard.

See this thread: http://forum.pafoa.org/pennsylvania-...ption-law.html

[marinakorp]

ooooh I smell an Oc picnic when the weather gets nicer!

[normanvin]

Ask them what you would be charged with if you are caught breaking the ordenence. Then ask if they could afford a law suit when they are sued.

[libertyof76]

Just reading this statement immediately gives me the impression that the person who wrote it lacks proper education and common sense.

The ban on possession of a firearm does not impact possession?

A third grader could explain the fallacy and contradiction in that statement.

Haha, did they actually read that when the wrote it?

If that doesn't work, I will personally travel to this park OC'ing if others will join with me to get these illegal laws the proper media attention it deserves

I'm definitely up for that.

[funsized]

State College Borough, unwillingly, overturned their park ordinance a few years ago because members of this forum brought it to their attention. Maybe search for State College preemption on the forum?