Plymouth Lost or Stolen. "Severability" Disclaimer?

**Devrbd** · May 14th, 2010, 07:43 AM

Plymouth Township passed their Lost or Stolen Ordinance this week. Reading today's public notice I found some odd wording toward the end. Having read a few of these, this is the first I've seen. It appears to be a disclaimer for completely breaking the law, I suppose. Link to full notice is below.

NOTICE OF ADOPTED ORDINANCE NOTICE IS HEREBY given that Plymouth Township Council adopted the following Ordinance at a public meeting on May 10, 2010, as summarized below: ORDINANCE NO. 1539 AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE PROMPT NOTIFICATION TO THE PLYMOUTH TOWNSHIP POLICE DEPARTMENT OF LOST OR STOLEN FIREARMS................ Section 5. Severability The terms, conditions and provisions of this Ordinance are hereby declared to be severable, and, should any portion, part or revision of this Ordinance be found by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, unenforceable or unconstitutional, Township Council hereby declares its intent that the ordinance shall have been enacted without regard to the invalid, unenforceable, or unconstitutional portion, part or provision of this Ordinance.

http://pa.mypublicnotices.com/Public...e&AdId=1902918

**theshadow** · May 14th, 2010, 08:55 AM

At this time, if you are a resident of Plymouth Meeting, I advise you to take two steps, First file a complaint with PA BAR association against the solicitor for actions in a conspiracy to violate PA UFA. Second go to the DA's office and file a private criminal complaint for conspiracy to violate against every member who voted for and supported the unlawful act. Make sure to name MAIG and Ceasefire PA as co-conspirators.

Somethings to keep in mind, one person does this it's a kook, so the more the better. Second, never tell people to do it, it's then it becomes a conspiracy of your own.

**-JD-** · May 14th, 2010, 01:55 PM

Originally Posted by Devrbd

Plymouth Township passed their Lost or Stolen Ordinance this week. Reading today's public notice I found some odd wording toward the end. Having read a few of these, this is the first I've seen. It appears to be a disclaimer for completely breaking the law, I suppose. Link to full notice is below.

Not too uncommon in the contracts that I have read. Essentially, even if one part is found to be invalid, the rest of the statute still stands.

**thefirstndsecond** · May 14th, 2010, 02:11 PM

Remember just because something is common, it still may be wrong.

Cease fire needs to be reprimanded form encouraging people from breaking the State Law.

**theshadow** · May 14th, 2010, 02:14 PM

Originally Posted by thefirstndsecond

Remember just because something is common, it still may be wrong.

Cease fire needs to be reprimanded form encouraging people from breaking the State Law.

YUP! <ten char>

**-JD-** · May 14th, 2010, 02:50 PM

Originally Posted by theshadow

Originally Posted by thefirstndsecond

Remember just because something is common, it still may be wrong.

Cease fire needs to be reprimanded form encouraging people from breaking the State Law.

YUP! <ten char>

Whoa there campers!

I was not endorsing, approving, supporting, condoning, or etc. the ordinance. I was merely commenting in response to the OP on the meaning of specific language used in that particular section. It could just as easily have been a parking meter ordinance.

**thefirstndsecond** · May 14th, 2010, 03:09 PM

Its cool man I understood what you were saying.

Common as in for contractual language.

It is also comm for auto repair centers to have a sign stating they are not responsible blah blah blah yet they do have some responsibility. (know what I mean meign)