Annoying CC experience at Citizen Bank Park

[tl_3237]

wow thanks you mean that if they pass no rule against firearms possesion that preemption doesn't apply? No kidding.

Two minutes of searching on an iPhone while eating peel and eat shrimp and talking to the barmaid


http://blog.vcdl.org/index.php?/arch...Stickers!.html

This isn't exactly what I was looking for but this is post fight to demand and force the colusium (which is leased by other non-government parties) to not allow bans of firearms on the premisses.

I'll check it out and get back if there's anything meaningful and verifiable

It's good enough to get the point across. You obviously just disagree with all those VA judges. That's your right but in the end our opinions mean far less than judges until we grab pitchforks and torches.

I don't necessarily disagree with the VA judges BECAUSE I haven't read their opinions! If you have links to the court documents I'll be glad to comment of them. So far I've only see blogs, news and individual interpretations - we all know how accurate those can be especially when it comes to legal nuances. I've been unable to google links for any on- point court documents which you indicated were plethoric - some links please.

Public property (owned by the state) is public property is public property and is public property. Preemption applies regardless of lease or not.

You keep saying that but, as i previously indicated, preemption only appllies to the legislative capabilities of a preempted entity. Have you got anything that indicates that preemption attaches to the real estate itself?

The leeser cannot supersede state law regarding public property. It isn't there's.

Granted. So cite the state law declaring preemption attaching to public PROPERTY itself.

If you lease a property from me and I say you can't restrict gun possesion you're SoL

Exactly right because that would be a contractual term of the lease agreement. As lessor you can impose reasonable conditions on the use of the property. Relevance to the issue under discussion?

and that is exactly what preemption does. That law doesn't disappear because you leased it.

But once again the preemption law does not attach to the property leased, only to the legislative function of the owner (city).

You can keep me out for any other reason say the color of my shoelaces or by invitation only

and what if my invitations exclude a protected class? Since this is illegal for a govenment entity do I lose that ability for my wedding reception at leased city fire hall?

but you're not almighty god striking down laws.

[whoshisface]

If you're a lawyer you can get the transcripts yourself.

The local gov cannot make a rule. It cannot therfore give a leese power it itself does not have. If it could then philladelphia could lease it's entire land property, sidewalks, roads, buildings etc to a private enity who inturn could then prohibit any form of carry. This is what you're proposing. The local gov doesn't have that power therefore it cannot extend the right to make a rule on property within it's control.

You have the date of the mall ruling use your connections to post the transcript here and we'll debate it then. Until then I'll take the word of lawyers from vcdl and the word of the ex-Leo president of the vcdl. Considering he's a fixture at the va Capitol is always on tv, in newspapers, and getting bills passed like the cc in resturaunts serving alcohol.

Here's the example your the state you say hey here's some land you can control but you cannot pass laws against yellow shoe strings. I hate yellow shoe strings my whole consitiancy hates yellow shoestrings so I lease out the land which is legal can they ban yellow shoestrings. They cannot! I don't have the right to ban yellow shoestrings therefore I cannot lease the right to ban them.

The vast majority of lawyers I've actually lined up for my case against limerick agree. They, unfortunatly, also agree unless I get a citation, which the town solicitor has told the chief no way in he'll should happen, I cannot really sue them.

I have $5,000 set aside for this very case.



I get it you disagree. I understand some judge can say it's night while the sun is shineing on his face.

I'll check it out and get back if there's anything meaningful and verifiable
I don't necessarily disagree with the VA judges BECAUSE I haven't read their opinions! If you have links to the court documents I'll be glad to comment of them. So far I've only see blogs, news and individual interpretations - we all know how accurate those can be especially when it comes to legal nuances. I've been unable to google links for any on- point court documents which you indicated were plethoric - some links please.

You keep saying that but, as i previously indicated, preemption only appllies to the legislative capabilities of a preempted entity. Have you got anything that indicates that preemption attaches to the real estate itself?

Granted. So cite the state law declaring preemption attaching to public PROPERTY itself.

Exactly right because that would be a contractual term of the lease agreement. As lessor you can impose reasonable conditions on the use of the property. Relevance to the issue under discussion?

But once again the preemption law does not attach to the property leased, only to the legislative function of the owner (city).


and what if my invitations exclude a protected class? Since this is illegal for a govenment entity do I lose that ability for my wedding reception at leased city fire hall?

[TaePo]

Examples being discussed are interesting. What if you have a wedding reception at a park? What if you did not pay for the use of the park, just did it? What if you did pay for the pavilion? Do you have the right to ask people to leave a public park that are in 'your' area. How about within 20 feet of your area? Or 100 feet?

The problem is that if lessees have complete rights to control leased property (other than as a residence or dwelling) and the property is otherwise publicly held for public use, all the government has to do is privatize all public areas by leasing to 'management agencies' from the private sector.

[tl_3237]

Examples being discussed are interesting. What if you have a wedding reception at a park? What if you did not pay for the use of the park, just did it? What if you did pay for the pavilion? Do you have the right to ask people to leave a public park that are in 'your' area. How about within 20 feet of your area? Or 100 feet?

If you do not have a contract with the owner (city for example) for use of the park then you have no authority to assert any type of control of it use by others. If you have a contractual agreement with the owner (city) then your ability to impose restrictions are a function of your lease/rental agreement. If your contract specifies exclusive use then you can exclude others but the process whereby they are excluded would depend on the rental terms and governing law, ie whether you have rights to assert 'exclusivity' rights with authority to trespass intruders or whether the failing of the lessor to provide your exclusive use would be contract breach. You have as much control and authoiry as the lease/rental agreement and applicable law gives you.

The problem is that if lessees have complete rights to control leased property (other than as a residence or dwelling) and the property is otherwise publicly held for public use, all the government has to do is privatize all public areas by leasing to 'management agencies' from the private sector.

Is the 'managing agencies' TRUELY leasing the public area for their own use or are they independent/dependent contractors managing the facility for the government entity? Are they paying the government owner for the use of the facility or are they paid by the government to perfom managing functions typically done by a land-owner?

As previously stated there is a difference between a lessee and an agent. If the city hires and/or directs the activities of the 'managing agent' then that agent could arguably be classified as a Government actor and subject to all restrictions place on the Government entity proper. In this thread's instance that would mean they would be subject to 6120 just the same as their customer (the city).

IMO a true lessee of city property does not inherit the 6120 prohibition by virtue of the real estate's owner. However if that nebulous fine line is crossed between true lessee and agent then 6120 prohibitions may well apply because that agent may be considered an extension of the city. Similarly if the city imposed a contract term requiring that the lessee impose a 'no firearms' policy, the lessee would arguably be adjudged as acting on behalf of or at the behest of the city and inherit the 6120 proscription.

[TaePo]

The reason I put that out there is we had similar issues in Venango County. The county park was named Two Mile Run.

A private management consortium 'took over' the running of the park.

Issues became rentals on cabins and campsites and building of tree homes for further rent competing with business enterprises. (No doubt an agency of the government in unfair competition)

Then they charged for access for vehicles to enter the main picnic and swim areas so it became less of a park to be enjoyed by the public which triggered arguements for the land to be taken back by the heirs of the person who donated on the condition it be used as a park for all the people of the county etc. (Charging for access restricted its use but they were able to ignore that provision somehow)

Eventually they went broke anyway especially with the suits.
I used to ride my motorbike up there on rides and stop in the shade for a smoke. Once they started charging I stopped going and do not know its status now.

But, I was not happy with it, and I am quite nervous about another arm of government and corporate (even private) enterprise being on one end of the teeter totter and the poor individuals (you and I) left hanging at their mercy up in the air at the other end.

I believe this issue is worth watching closely. I foresee a possible attempt to circumvent liberties via backdoor schemes, of which, this could qualify as one of them.

ETA= IIRC, I should add that the party was allowed to make a profit as well. It was not as though all monies earned went to maintain the park. So it is a mix of agency theory and possibly leasing.

[whoshisface]

This is one of the reasons the VA judge ruled as he did. I don't have the exact wording but as I've interpeted it basically he said public is public and the laws restricting government agencies apply even to those that lease from the government agency. You rent the pavilion then only you have access to it but you can't make rules for it's use in excess or overrulling the law.

The state cannot give the lessee power beyond it's own! In this case it's no different than subleting. I can't give you permission to bring in a pet if my lease doesn't allow me to! VA judges have been ruling this way for years regarding evey case of lease from a government body. Will PA rule the same way, particularly in appelate court when they start thinking about the reaching implications that a government entity could use it to violate he law? I bet they would understand why it would be a horrible idea to allow the state to circumvent the law by allowing them to lease their properties! Those that disagree must really believe that pa judges are brainless. Maybe they are but I'll bet no.

There are several VA rulings we could refer to in a court battle. Not that VA law really needs to be considered in a PA court but it would probably cause any judge to pause and think about the implimcations of sa ruling allowing a less to override state law just because they pay rent!

Examples being discussed are interesting. What if you have a wedding reception at a park? What if you did not pay for the use of the park, just did it? What if you did pay for the pavilion? Do you have the right to ask people to leave a public park that are in 'your' area. How about within 20 feet of your area? Or 100 feet?

The problem is that if lessees have complete rights to control leased property (other than as a residence or dwelling) and the property is otherwise publicly held for public use, all the government has to do is privatize all public areas by leasing to 'management agencies' from the private sector.

[GunLawyer001]

This is one of the reasons the VA judge ruled as he did. I don't have the exact wording but as I've interpeted it basically he said public is public and the laws restricting government agencies apply even to those that lease from the government agency. You rent the pavilion then only you have access to it but you can't make rules for it's use in excess or overrulling the law.

The state cannot give the lessee power beyond it's own! In this case it's no different than subleting. I can't give you permission to bring in a pet if my lease doesn't allow me to! VA judges have been ruling this way for years regarding evey case of lease from a government body. Will PA rule the same way, particularly in appelate court when they start thinking about the reaching implications that a government entity could use it to violate he law? I bet they would understand why it would be a horrible idea to allow the state to circumvent the law by allowing them to lease their properties! Those that disagree must really believe that pa judges are brainless. Maybe they are but I'll bet no.

There are several VA rulings we could refer to in a court battle. Not that VA law really needs to be considered in a PA court but it would probably cause any judge to pause and think about the implimcations of sa ruling allowing a less to override state law just because they pay rent!

This is one of the reasons that I was initially asked to join PAFOA a few years back, to restrain the wild guessing about the law.

There's no evidence that PA preemption runs with the land. There's not even a binding interpretation that "regulate in any manner" encompasses the managerial rule-making of city-owned property.

Where would this assumption get you? Can a PA city make a workplace law that the city clerks be unarmed while at their desk? If the city owns a 25% or 100% share of an office building, would this presumed disability prevent every company that rents office space from imposing workplace rules against guns?

This borders on the silly. The implication of your theory is that a WalMart store on WalMart property is free to ban guns carried by customers or employees, but if it leases the land from any governmental agency, then it's bound by preemption, especially since it's open to the public.

Don't get me wrong, I'd like to see a statute that allows the means for self-defense in all places open to the public; at the least, I'd like to see a statute which declares that by choosing to force disarmament, the property owner assumes the duty to protect each invitee from all criminal acts by 3rd parties; this would confuse the bean counters, because gutless disarmament policies would no longer be the best choice from a pure dollars view.

[NEPAGUNNER]

I think I am just going to get an NAA Mini-Revolver with the wallet holster...



register it as an AOW.... and hopefully aviod this whole situation... If that means sneaking it in and minding my own business then so be it...

Didnt I hear of someone getting who got in a confrontation which escalcted to them being beaten to death outside the Citizens Bank Park like a year or two ago??

[GunLawyer001]

. . .
Didnt I hear of someone getting who got in a confrontation which escalcted to them being beaten to death outside the Citizens Bank Park like a year or two ago??

David Sale - http://cbs3.com/local/Killed.Dead.Fight.2.1101364.html

[NEPAGUNNER]

David Sale - http://cbs3.com/local/Killed.Dead.Fight.2.1101364.html

See I knew it... That is absoloute crap... Now I might just tape my Desert Eagle to my Balls...but realistically I will be carring an AOW verry soon!! may it be a pen gun or an NAA Mini_revolver with the wallet.... it will be better than nothing...