GOA Sues City of Philadelphia Over Illegal Executive Order Banning Guns in Parks

[Walleye Hunter]

It would be nice if the penalty for a politician losing a lawsuit on grounds of unconstitutionality is automatic ejection from office. I think you would find the asshats being a lot more careful with their bullshit.

I'm good with that idea.

[SigForLife]

In Dillon v. City of Erie, 83 A. 3d 467 - Pa: Commonwealth Court 2014 a pro-gun rally was planned for a public park in Erie.

The Commonwealth court eventually ruled that the ordinance was a preemption violation in that the city was not empowered as a GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY under the home rule charter relying on previous case law.



and therefore the Commonwealth Court ruled:


Sounds like a win BUT there was a not so veiled hint that there may be a preemption work-around available to future restrictive actions by cities, towns, counties, etc regarding firearms provided in the [9] footnote dicta which stated:


This is what will probably play a significant role invoked by the City in the case at hand - the innate power of a"property owner" [of the park] simply setting rules as opposed to a government subdivision using their legislative and police power to establish and enforce an ordinance. The enforcement mechanism would then fall under the trespass statute (18 Pa CSA §3503)

And FOAC et al v. Lower Merion Township dealt with that footnote, with the Commonwealth Court ruling that local government could not regulate firearms inclusive of discharge even on its own property. Been there, done that, won that case.

[SigForLife]

I'm not going to provide hints for the enemy to read. I will say that "gun-free zones" are the most dangerous places in America because all but 1 or 2 of the mass shootings in America have targeted them (not the Vegas shooting, because that loony chose (or was told to use) a high shooting position where the victims couldn't shoot back whether armed or not), that Philly gangbangers don't give a shit about park policies, and that the record of gun violence on city property is almost certainly completely unrelated to LTCF holders, who by definition have been law-abiding for the first 2 decades of their lives. The shooters tend to be career thugs, who are ALREADY prohibited by PA law (and usually Federal law) from possessing handguns anywhere.

Some idiotic laws or policies are not un-Constitutional, but they're still idiotic, and have zero chance of saving any lives, while they have a significant, documented chance of encouraging homicidal maniacs who know that they will be the only armed person in that venue.

That’s a first for you, Phil. Turning over a new leaf? Congrats!

[GunLawyer001]

And FOAC et al v. Lower Merion Township dealt with that footnote, with the Commonwealth Court ruling that local government could not regulate firearms inclusive of discharge even on its own property. Been there, done that, won that case.

Actually, no, that's not what your case was about, and anyone can read the opinion and see that. It was NOT about local govt using its property-owner rights to ban guns, it was about local govt using it's GOVERNMENT POLICE POWERS to criminalize already-illegal gun conduct:

Facts and Procedural History

In 2011, Lower Merion Township (Township) passed an ordinance amending section 109*16 of its Code (Ordinance) to prohibit persons from "carry[ing] or discharg [ing] firearms of any kind in a park without a special permit, unless exempted." Lower Merion Township, Pa., Code § 109*16. The Ordinance imposes a maximum fine of $600.00 per violation and authorizes the police to remove violators from Township parks or recreation areas.

See Lower Merion Township, Pa., Code § 109*21 (imposing civil penalties).

In 2014, FOAC contacted the Township and alleged that the Ordinance violated section 6120(a) of the Pennsylvania Uniform Firearms Act (UFA) because it improperly restricted firearm possession in Township parks. Upon review, the Township determined that the Ordinance was consistent with the UFA because it only prohibited the unlawful possession of firearms in parks and, therefore, chose not to repeal or revise it. FOAC subsequently conducted a rally in a Township park where many of its members carried firearms; however, no citations were issued and no threats of prosecution were made.

By imposing a $600 fine, that township used GOVERNMENT authority which violated the state preemption. Not what footnote 9 hinted at, not at all.

Your case stated "We reasoned that Wolfe was distinguishable from Duff because, in Wolfe , the township acted as a property owner regulating only municipal-owned property rather than acting as a township regulating throughout the municipality. Specifically, we stated:

Residents, while relying heavily on this Court's reasoning in Duff , ignore an important distinction between that case and the one before us. In Duff , a township enacted an ordinance regulating hunting throughout the township inconsistently with the Game Law, based on its police powers *that is, as a governmental entity. Here, however, the Township enacted the Ordinance, in compliance with the Game Law, based on its rights as a property owner of the two parks."

Also, "Additionally, it is not clear whether the Ordinance was promulgated pursuant to the Township's police powers or based on its rights as a property owner; however, the fact that the Ordinance authorizes the police to remove violators from Township parks suggests the Township's police power is the basis for the Ordinance rather than its property-owner rights. Therefore, the Township's argument that Firearm Owners' right to relief is not clear based on its authority to regulate its parks as a property owner pursuant to Wolfe is unpersuasive."

I hesitate to show the flaws in the suit's main argument, but the drafting of the city's Executive Order pretty clearly shows that whoever drafted it was aware of the loophole and worked pretty hard to stay within its parameters, so they aren't learning anything new from me, nor are my musings here admissible as evidence in any hearing. If these thoughts never occurred to FOAC's counsel, then they damned well better prepare for them because they will be the centerpiece of the city's defense.

I hate to be a party pooper, but the fine folks of PAFOA deserve the truth, not just cheerleading. Honestly, look back at my predictions and see my record. I said that using a trust to make a new post-86 machinegun was never going to work, and I was screamed at by people making money off the effort, mostly at Arfcom. But I was right, even the lead counsel eventually figured that out and went with a 2nd Amendment argument (which also failed, but not as embarrassingly as the trust argument would have been.)

There would be no Constitutional or Preemption argument against Walmart having a "no-guns" policy in its stores, and cities have at least that much authority under their property owner perks, as long as they don't act using police powers, which would be preempted.

[Carson]

I doubt it, seeing as it was just in the courts not too long ago. He and Krasner are flailing and he doesn't know what to do so he's doing this.

Pretty much this

[SevenMilePete]

I live in Erie. Not sure what exactly you are referring to about "the Erie case?"

Tailbump. That case is world famous, in Erie. A bunch of guys carried ARs in Perry Square to protest the city law banning guns, even concealed, in all city parks. Way back in 2013.

It was discussed on the forum here:

https://forum.pafoa.org/showthread.php?t=218794&page=33

[tallbump]

Ok, got it. I remember that case quite well.

I was pretty new to firearms back then, but followed the case.

Guess I forgot what a big deal it was as I already knew the law was illegal and we would win.

[vfinnell]

GOA's case goes before Judge Roberts tomorrow (Friday, 9/30) at 1:30 PM for our emergency injunction.

[Fetus]

GOA's case goes before Judge Roberts tomorrow (Friday, 9/30) at 1:30 PM for our emergency injunction.

Thanks For your work ... Hate this city its like a 3rd world country .