Bellefonte now prohibiting weapons in parks

[61Panhead]

The Lock Haven Express newspaper reports today that Bellefonte Borough will be taking steps to advertise changes in the Park & Rec ordinance prohibiting firearms in borough parks.

Wouldn't recent Pa preemption law changes prohibit local ordinances such as this?

[Emptymag]

The Lock Haven Express newspaper reports today that Bellefonte Borough will be taking steps to advertise changes in the Park & Rec ordinance prohibiting firearms in borough parks.

Wouldn't recent Pa preemption law changes prohibit local ordinances such as this?

Yes. Preemption law prohibited it before too.
Interesting that they are doing it after the law became "more the law" recently.

Not that any of them CARE what the law was - or is - anyway.

[tsor39]

Ordinance 405-2 section L is in violation of PA Statute 6120 and they have been put on notice of the violation.

[tl_3237]

The Lock Haven Express newspaper reports today that Bellefonte Borough will be taking steps to advertise changes in the Park & Rec ordinance prohibiting firearms in borough parks.

Wouldn't recent Pa preemption law changes prohibit local ordinances such as this?

You sure the 'change' was not to the existing prohibition??? Thus allowing firearms.

Current pre-2006 ordinance, which violates pre-emption, is:





http://bellefonte.net/government/borough-ordinances/

With the recent change to 6120, they may be updating their ordinance to comply withy pre-emption and avoid the cost of a suit.

Can you link the newspaper article?

[61Panhead]

The article hasn't yet been posted online, the paper version said ..."approved advertising changes to ordinance 405, which covers parks and recreation. Changes include provisions to eliminate smoking in all parks, a requirement that all who seek park reservations first get a permit from the borough, and prohibits firearms in borough parks."

Assuming that the news media is accurate (ok, lol) this would read that it is being created, not repealed.

[tl_3237]

The article hasn't yet been posted online, the paper version said ..."approved advertising changes to ordinance 405, which covers parks and recreation. Changes include provisions to eliminate smoking in all parks, a requirement that all who seek park reservations first get a permit from the borough, and prohibits firearms in borough parks."

Assuming that the news media is accurate (ok, lol) this would read that it is being created, not repealed.

Interesting since the current park ordinance already prohibits firearm possession.
Keep lookout for the advertised ordinance in the paper

[tsor39]

Here is the response received. They are revising the ordinance to bring it in accordance with the law.

"Hello Mr. TSOR39,


Your timing is good. The borough has been going through that ordinance to amend various sections including the one related to firearms. Just last night, council approved the draft ordinance with amendments (including the firearms restriction being removed) and will formally adopt the amended ordinance on December 15th. For what it is worth, that section of the ordinance was not enforced.


Ralph Stewart"

Mr Stewart is the borough manager.

[sota]

"... not enforced."

You know, in this day and age it should be possible to generate a correlation report between ordinances and enforcement. If any ordinance is not enforced a certain number of times in a given period it should be automatically presented to council for revocation at the next meeting. At the very least we could use it as an employment booster... someone needs to sift through the paperwork.

[KamikazeKnifer]

Not that any of them CARE what the law was - or is - anyway.

Truth. State College Borough didn't repeal theirs until a 4-3 split decision in mid-2011, and that was only after the council members found out they could be sued - and would clearly lose. They then turned around that same week and decided to unanimously motion the General Assembly to amend Title 18 to allow municipalities to ban firearms in parks and municipal buildings.

We know how well that turned out.

[Manxdriver]

"... not enforced."

You know, in this day and age it should be possible to generate a correlation report between ordinances and enforcement. If any ordinance is not enforced a certain number of times in a given period it should be automatically presented to council for revocation at the next meeting. At the very least we could use it as an employment booster... someone needs to sift through the paperwork.

Well, that is a horrible idea if ever there was one! I am not trying to make you angry, I know you just didn't 'see' what was coming. If that were to occur, we would, by now, be overrun with illegal immigrants, blacks would have murdered ALL white people, and Warminster cops would have killed everyone in town and be headed into Montgomery County.

Imagine just how much worse off America would be if good laws could be tossed simply by Obungle telling Holder NOT to enforce them for a given period of time! Of course, we all know this is already the case.