Negative encounter at Malvern Drivers License Center with Police response.

[ray h]

The cops said something that I wondered about in the past and there's no clear cut answer on it, I believe.

PennDOT would be leasing the building from a private owner, many times the licensing centers are in malls or business center buildings. So who has the authority to post, would the owner of the property have the right to post their buildings even though a state agency is leasing it? Does pre-emption take precedence in that case?

I believe it's murky at best.

It is murky.
I tried to find an answer a couple years ago when I found out that a local park has "no firearms" signs up. the park land is owned by a PA borough but a private trust leases and maintains the park and land.
being owned by the borough would indicate it falls under preemption, but being leased to a private trust would indicate it doesn't.
I couldn't find anything that swung either way.

[Remington788]

The cops said something that I wondered about in the past and there's no clear cut answer on it, I believe.

PennDOT would be leasing the building from a private owner, many times the licensing centers are in malls or business center buildings. So who has the authority to post, would the owner of the property have the right to post their buildings even though a state agency is leasing it? Does pre-emption take precedence in that case?

I believe it's murky at best.

The lessee (renter) sets the rules. This is why baseball teams can restrict carrying in stadiums owned by the city.

That said, the lessor (landlord) may include a clause in the lease that prohibits certain activities. They can tell a restaurant that it may not serve Chinese food, typically because they already have a Chinese restaurant in the shopping center. So it is possible that the owner/landlord does prohibit firearms. I doubt it though.

[streaker69]

The lessee (renter) sets the rules. This is why baseball teams can restrict carrying in stadiums owned by the city.

That said, the lessor (landlord) may include a clause in the lease that prohibits certain activities. They can tell a restaurant that it may not serve Chinese food, typically because they already have a Chinese restaurant in the shopping center. So it is possible that the owner/landlord does prohibit firearms. I doubt it though.

I think it both parties could effectively set the rules. There's a strip mall here that has a Walmart, and several other stores. One store has a very clear sign prohibiting firearms, but we all know that Walmart allows them.

It's possible that the lessor could also set a policy since they own the building. I just think that this is far from settled especially when it comes to dealing with state agencies leasing property from private companies/citizens.

But what you said about the lessee setting the rules could also be interesting, something I asked a long time ago. What if a township were to lease their parks to some "management" organization for $1/year. Since they're leasing the park, they could effectively set a no firearms policy, even though the township would retain ownership.

[twency]

Preemption applies to any "county, municipality or township". Not the state itself.

There may be an argument that the 2nd Amendment (and PA's own Article 1, Section 21) restricts the ability of the state to infringe or "question" your ability to keep and bear arms. But Section 6120 of the UFA does not.

On a related note, back when the 2nd Amendment was claimed only to restrict Congress, you'll note that Congress banned gun pretty much on every property where they had erected a building, and the entire District of Columbia. Plus, they created "police" regulations without having any inherent police powers.

There's a whole lot of fertile ground for pruning back the federal rules and laws regarding every federal building, Post Office, military reservation, etc. If they can ban guns everyplace they control, then the 2nd Amendment has no teeth.

I figured he was referring to the (unclear, unresolved, as far as I know) possibility that the statutory change enacted by HB40 had the effect of preempting state agencies.

http://forum.pafoa.org/pennsylvania-...9-m-3-2-a.html

[GunLawyer001]

I figured he was referring to the (unclear, unresolved, as far as I know) possibility that the statutory change enacted by HB40 had the effect of preempting state agencies.

http://forum.pafoa.org/pennsylvania-...9-m-3-2-a.html

The first thing the challenger of the regulation would need to do, is point to the other provision in the UFA with which the questioned regulation would be inconsistent.

[XavierBK]

The first thing the challenger of the regulation would need to do, is point to the other provision in the UFA with which the questioned regulation would be inconsistent.

Someone had pointed this out on the other site, would this apply in any way? Or would it not due to dealing specifically with the license which covers CC or vehicle carry?

18 Pa.C.S. § 6109. Licenses.

(m.3) Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be construed to:
(1) Permit the hunting or harvesting of any wildlife with a firearm or ammunition not otherwise
permitted by 34 Pa.C.S. (relating to game).
(2) Authorize any Commonwealth agency to regulate the possession of firearms in any manner
inconsistent with the provisions of this title.
(n) Definition.--As used in this section, the term "licensee" means an individual who is licensed to
carry a firearm under this section.

[Big77]

Our duty is to believe that for which we have sufficient evidence, and to suspend our judgment when we have not.

[Statkowski]

Secretary of Transportation (PennDOT) is Barry J. Schoch, P.E.

His mailing address is: Keystone Building, 400 North Street, Harrisburg, PA 17120

You can also send a separate letter of complaint (and embarrassment, and outrage) to: Riverfront Office Center (Driver and Vehicle Services), 1101 South Front Street, Harrisburg, PA 17104-2516

Just me, but I'd insist someone in authority explain why one was threatened with arrest for lawful conduct.

Although hard-copy letters are generally more effective than e-mails, you can e-mail PennDOT's Driver and Vehicle Services with related questions/complaints/compliments at http://www.dmv.state.pa.us/contact_us/index.shtml

[streaker69]

Secretary of Transportation (PennDOT) is Barry J. Schoch, P.E.

His mailing address is: Keystone Building, 400 North Street, Harrisburg, PA 17120

You can also send a separate letter of complaint (and embarrassment, and outrage) to: Riverfront Office Center (Driver and Vehicle Services), 1101 South Front Street, Harrisburg, PA 17104-2516

Just me, but I'd insist someone in authority explain why one was threatened with arrest for lawful conduct.

Although hard-copy letters are generally more effective than e-mails, you can e-mail PennDOT's Driver and Vehicle Services with related questions/complaints/compliments at http://www.dmv.state.pa.us/contact_us/index.shtml

Those letters should be CC'ed to his State Rep's as well.

[Statkowski]

So, how'd it go with the police report?