Trouble in Lancaster City!

**JAKIII** · April 28th, 2014, 09:40 PM

Guess I won't be going there to wax my car...

**Tommahawk** · May 4th, 2014, 12:21 AM

Just found out on Saturday that the sign was never approved by anyone from the City. It was approved by the people that sit on the board of directors. Most I might add or not gun friendly (Imagine that!)

I spoke to my boss and he said that they are absolutely in the wrong and he has mentioned it to them that they better take it down before they have action taken against them...

BTW, I had to do a FOIA request to get this information, even though 75% of the board is made up of Lancaster City Public Officials.....

Mayor J Richard Gray, Chairman
Charlotte Katzenmoyer - Director of Public Works
E. William Andrews - Controller
Patrick Hopkins - Director of Administrtive Services
Eloise Aurand - At Large Member?
Joe Legenstein - Lancaster Sertoma Club
David Schwanger - At Large Member
Rick Kurtz -

**Yellowfin** · May 4th, 2014, 04:55 PM

Time to kick out some minor league anti gun politicians from office before they get to the state level and do some damage with their inclinations.

**Rblakely** · May 4th, 2014, 09:01 PM

There is lots of talk about "this could happen" or a municipality "might take that approach".

Facts are facts. The Erie decision (not dicta or a wink but actual, cite-able case law) proves this sign is illegal. Ask them to take it down as it is in violation of the UFA, as recently upheld.....again.

**Tommahawk** · May 4th, 2014, 09:26 PM

I don't want to drag my boss's name into this, but he is kinda of a big deal in the gun/armory/cannon industry. He is 1000% pro gun. After I asked his opinion the other day of what to do, he told me that he has told the Lancaster City administration that they must recognize that firearms are allowed in the parks. Basically the administration snubbed their noses at him and laughed.

And to think... Mayor Rick Gray is a attorney.....

**GunLawyer001** · May 4th, 2014, 10:01 PM

Originally Posted by Rblakely

There is lots of talk about "this could happen" or a municipality "might take that approach".

Facts are facts. The Erie decision (not dicta or a wink but actual, cite-able case law) proves this sign is illegal. Ask them to take it down as it is in violation of the UFA, as recently upheld.....again.

Sadly, the Erie decision merely struck down penal statutes that regulate guns within municipalities, even on municipal property. This is not a penal statute, any more than the sign on a Walmart that bans guns is a penal statute.

The dicta encouraged municipalities to ban guns on municipal property via non-penal rules, under their authority as property owners, and not as municipal entities with the power to enact summary ordinances.

The Superior Court did what I predicted in my very first post on PAFOA in 2006.
http://forum.pafoa.org/general-2/150...html#post15891

**twency** · May 5th, 2014, 08:49 AM

Originally Posted by Rblakely

There is lots of talk about "this could happen" or a municipality "might take that approach".

Facts are facts. The Erie decision (not dicta or a wink but actual, cite-able case law) proves this sign is illegal. Ask them to take it down as it is in violation of the UFA, as recently upheld.....again.

No, it doesn't. I wish it did but it doesn't.

The Erie decision says that something else is illegal but hints that this is legal.

Facts are facts.