Trouble in Lancaster City!

[Tommahawk]

Maybe Lancaster City just doesn't get it. Longs Park is owned by the City of Lancaster and operated by a Board of Commissioners enacted to do so. Last year I went there and I noticed that there was a sign that stated that under one of the rules listed at the entrance to Longs Park, it stated NO FIREARMS OR ARCHERY

Well being the troublemaker I am, I went back today to see if the sign is still posted, and saw the following sign:



Would everyone agree that this is in violation of the law under Title 18 Section 6120 which was upheld by the Commonwealth Courts in the ruling Dillion vs Erie City in January of this year.

I just want to be sure that I have clarified this correctly that a ruling has been made by the courts that the PA State preemption trumps local municipal rules & regulations.......

[Curmudgeon]

Maybe Lancaster City just doesn't get it. Longs Park is owned by the City of Lancaster and operated by a Board of Commissioners enacted to do so. Last year I went there and I noticed that there was a sign that stated that under one of the rules listed at the entrance to Longs Park, it stated NO FIREARMS OR ARCHERY

Well being the troublemaker I am, I went back today to see if the sign is still posted, and saw the following sign:



Would everyone agree that this is in violation of the law under Title 18 Section 6120 which was upheld by the Commonwealth Courts in the ruling Dillion vs Erie City in January of this year.

I just want to be sure that I have clarified this correctly that a ruling has been made by the courts that the PA State preemption trumps local municipal rules & regulations.......

^There's no "picture".

[twency]

Maybe Lancaster City just doesn't get it. Longs Park is owned by the City of Lancaster and operated by a Board of Commissioners enacted to do so. Last year I went there and I noticed that there was a sign that stated that under one of the rules listed at the entrance to Longs Park, it stated NO FIREARMS OR ARCHERY

Well being the troublemaker I am, I went back today to see if the sign is still posted, and saw the following sign:



Would everyone agree that this is in violation of the law under Title 18 Section 6120 which was upheld by the Commonwealth Courts in the ruling Dillion vs Erie City in January of this year.

I just want to be sure that I have clarified this correctly that a ruling has been made by the courts that the PA State preemption trumps local municipal rules & regulations.......

Sort of.

Footnote 9 of Dillon v. City of Erie left situations like this one (a condition of use for municipally-owned property) murky.

9. Not raised by the City is Section 3710 of the Third Class City Code, Act of June 23, 1931, P.L. 932, as amended, 53 P.S. § 38710, which provides, in pertinent part, that the City “shall at all times be invested with the power and authority to adopt suitable rules and regulations concerning the use and occupation of [its] parks and playgrounds by the public generally․” It could be argued that the City may be empowered under that grant of power from the State to regulate the possession of firearms in its parks pursuant to its proprietary power to control conduct that takes place on its property rather than through an ordinance of general application enacted pursuant to its general police powers. Similarly, Section 11.215 of the regulations of the Commonwealth's Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, 17 Pa.Code § 11.215, generally prohibits “[p]ossessing an uncased device, or uncasing a device, including a firearm, ․ that is capable of discharging or propelling a projectile ․” in state parks, subject to a number of enumerated exceptions.

______________________

^There's no "picture".

The image is apparently coded to prevent hotlinking. I was able to load the image by opening it in a new window. The image URL is http://i.imgur.com/8E6WiMX

[ray h]

One could argue that except which came last, preemption or that city code? Which one caries more weight, a statute or a city code?

[GunLawyer001]

One could argue that except which came last, preemption or that city code? Which one caries more weight, a statute or a city code?

That's not the point. State law trumps local law, the way federal law trumps state law, and the Constitution trumps both state and federal law.

The point, as I've been stating here since 2006, is that courts can legitimately distinguish "police power regulations" (ordinances enforced by summary penalties) from "perks of owning property" (mere policies enforced by kicking people off the property). Courts could go the other way, too, but personal prejudice combined with judicial activism made that unlikely.

I took a lot of grief for stating this, from people who let their personal agenda and political goals overwhelm their brains. People took the Erie case on, and created that opportunity for the anti-rights activists in black. Now we have the Superior Court telegraphing their intent to allow anti-gun "policies" on municipally-owned property, using the Erie case as an opportunity to expand the regulation of guns as far as possible within the existing statutes.

[streaker69]

Things like this don't exactly help matters any: http://www.wgal.com/news/susquehanna...-Park/14722876

[Travis Bickle]

Things like this don't exactly help matters any: http://www.wgal.com/news/susquehanna...-Park/14722876

I remember that one. What an IDIOT.

[ray h]

That's not the point. State law trumps local law, the way federal law trumps state law, and the Constitution trumps both state and federal law.

The point, as I've been stating here since 2006, is that courts can legitimately distinguish "police power regulations" (ordinances enforced by summary penalties) from "perks of owning property" (mere policies enforced by kicking people off the property). Courts could go the other way, too, but personal prejudice combined with judicial activism made that unlikely.

I guess I don't understand because I agree with you, state law trumps local law or local policy, but somehow that must be wrong because you say it is.
I admit, it's over my head and I don't understand what that sentence means.

[jmoyer]

They are missing a few:

No sitting in your car with a large stuffed animal in the passenger seat trying to attract kids.

No backing in and looking for a gay hookup.

No pedophilia-realted activities.


Talk to a local police officer. That is a shady place. I avoid it like the plague. I once went to ToysRus with my son and got there too early and decided to hang out at the park until it opened, wow what an eye opener...That is when I say the guy in his 60's backed in with a large stuffed animal in his car. WTF?

Maybe it was a gift...Weird, guys were driving around real slow...Creepy stuff...

[Mitch10mm]

Years ago they had a vice sting because of bathroom hookups and such. Other than cruising there back in the late 80s I never bothered going there. A lot better places on the southern end park wise