Preemption violation: Northumberland County Expands Security to Admin building.

[The Drew]

http://wkok.info/news/news-news/inst...tion-building/

Installing metal detectors this month at administration building

Written by Ali Stevens on Tuesday, September 3, 2013 @ 5:29 PM ·
SUNBURY – When you walk into the Northumberland County Administration building, you will be walking through a metal detector. A month ago the commissioners approved installing the metal detector at the front door and it will be put into working order soon. “It should be in place by the next commissioner’s meeting,” says Commissioner Stephen Bridy.
Bridy says the metal detector will help with increased safety for the building in general, at commissioner’s meetings and for additional purposes. “We just had a letter come over from President Judge Robert Sacavage,” says Bridy. “The judge says there are numerous depositions in the building and they also use it as chambers or an occasional courtroom if needed, so it is best to install the metal detectors immediately and not allow weapons in the building.”
Northumberland County had purchased the metal detectors a while ago, but following the deadly shooting at a public meeting in Monroe County, the discussion was revived into increased safety. (Sara Bartlett)

I do not believe the Admin building falls into the category of court facility under the UFA. And installing this security would be a preemption violation.

I do have a local Attorney who is interested in this case as well as I am interested in fighting this. I believe they have overstepped their authority.

[dunno]

They will just cite "county property" thus making it private property and get away with it.

We need to nail down "county property". If it was purchased with tax money then county property SHOULD be public not private. It is owned by the people of that county.

[schr8er2000]

§ 6120. Limitation on the regulation of firearms and ammunition.
(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.

Bold is mine...... So I wonder how it could be considered PRIVATE PROPERTY and can make sure rulings... UNLESS there is substantial proof that it is an actual court..... Something that probably would be best answered by contacting the State Senator and/or Representative for that area...

[dunno]

It isn't legal its just what they claim and unless you have the dough to sue and lose at the county level then appeal at state level we are stuck with it.

This is what Chester county says about its parks, they are "county property" thus making it private property thus they can ban whatever they want, so they ban guns.

They know they are gaming the system and its illegal but what are YOU going to do about it. Even if you appeal all the way to the state level and win, they will get in NO trouble for it. They broke the law, they will not get fined, they will get no jail time, they will get no probation for their criminal activity.

[schr8er2000]

But at least if we get some state reps involved.....MAYBE if someone from the state level gets involved they will understand they are wrong and get soem DUMB ASSES to realize it...

[PensDevil]

Discussed here a few weeks ago. See post #9 for a link to a newspaper article containing this quote from a commissioner:

"If a person has a permit to carry a firearm, county officials cannot take it from him, but Bridy said metal detectors will allow county officials to know who is carrying upon arrival."

Sounds like they found a loophole to reverse that stance rather quickly. If they are going the occasional courtroom route, let's see if they provide secure storage as required. Of course, the main courthouse's "secure storage" was a single little safe behind the security checkpoint desk that may or may not be locked (I've seen it both ways).

[ChamberedRound]

Yup. If a judge presides there, they can claim it's a "court facility". The law makes no distinction between any part/full time use.

However, if it they try to go the "court facility" route, they will be obligated to provide for safe storage.

[dunno]

That's laughable we know from reading many of these posts legitimate courtrooms don't have gun lockers. It would be funny if you get one person per day to agree to go to that facility and try to check their gun it would drive them crazy. Just remember to bring a copy of the law with you.

[The Drew]

This move is a direct reaction to the shooting at a municipal meeting. The commissioners hold their public meetings in this Admin building and wish to ban guns at those meetings and have been trying to find a way to do so since that incident happened.

That being said, I suppose that the tactic moving forward should be get many people to attempt to check their weapons at the next public meeting and when we are refused, then we will have a problem...

[dunno]

All they have to do to accomplish this is hold the stupid meetings at the local high school.

This is why I can't carry a gun while I vote.


[edit]

I rereading your post I find it funny. There was a shooting at a meeting and they want a law so there will be no more shootings at their meetings. LOL They already have laws that "protect" them. Why do they think a new piece of paper with words will shield them?