Issues with a rally this coming June in Erie.

**HyDef** · February 21st, 2014, 02:29 PM

Just a quick thought concerning "footnote 9" as far as it relates to public parks. Perhaps GunLawyer001 can weigh in on this.

Could the PA supreme Court case of Philadelphia Museum v. The University of Pennsylvania, which became known as the Public Trust Doctrine of 1915, be used to argue that these municipalities do not really own public parks.

The PA Supreme Court stated that public parks belong to the people because the people paid for the land, paid for renovations and paid for perpetual care management. The municipality is merely a trustee constitutionally charged with the care of the park on behalf of the people.

Also, I believe if a government unit did enact some type of "footnote 9" private property regulation, standing to argue that issue wouldn't be an issue since the court also ruled that any resident of PA could sue under a public trust related lawsuit.

Thoughts? Legitimate Angle?

**Carnes** · February 21st, 2014, 09:18 PM

Originally Posted by HyDef

Just a quick thought concerning "footnote 9" as far as it relates to public parks. Perhaps GunLawyer001 can weigh in on this.

Could the PA supreme Court case of Philadelphia Museum v. The University of Pennsylvania, which became known as the Public Trust Doctrine of 1915, be used to argue that these municipalities do not really own public parks.

The PA Supreme Court stated that public parks belong to the people because the people paid for the land, paid for renovations and paid for perpetual care management. The municipality is merely a trustee constitutionally charged with the care of the park on behalf of the people.

Also, I believe if a government unit did enact some type of "footnote 9" private property regulation, standing to argue that issue wouldn't be an issue since the court also ruled that any resident of PA could sue under a public trust related lawsuit.

Thoughts? Legitimate Angle?

Makes sense to me.

**GunLawyer001** · February 21st, 2014, 10:45 PM

Originally Posted by HyDef

Just a quick thought concerning "footnote 9" as far as it relates to public parks. Perhaps GunLawyer001 can weigh in on this.

Could the PA supreme Court case of Philadelphia Museum v. The University of Pennsylvania, which became known as the Public Trust Doctrine of 1915, be used to argue that these municipalities do not really own public parks.

The PA Supreme Court stated that public parks belong to the people because the people paid for the land, paid for renovations and paid for perpetual care management. The municipality is merely a trustee constitutionally charged with the care of the park on behalf of the people.

Also, I believe if a government unit did enact some type of "footnote 9" private property regulation, standing to argue that issue wouldn't be an issue since the court also ruled that any resident of PA could sue under a public trust related lawsuit.

Thoughts? Legitimate Angle?

Good thinking on your part.

Not sure it would persuade an inherently anti-gun court, though. The folks who decided that Pennsylvanians didn't count as "people" could find a way to distinguish an alienation case from a property management case.

**TaePo** · February 22nd, 2014, 05:47 AM

Originally Posted by GunLawyer001

Good thinking on your part.

Not sure it would persuade an inherently anti-gun court, though. The folks who decided that Pennsylvanians didn't count as "people" could find a way to distinguish an alienation case from a property management case.

Wait, so you are saying that when we see a judge at the bench looking through his magnifying glass, he isn't trying to read the fine print but is actually trying to focus the sun's rays on us pissants who have so ingloriously infested the courtroom?

How dare we have rights and insist on them.