Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: An carry win over Erie

  1. #1
    Regular Member Golden Eagle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    SW Michigan

    Cool A carry win over Erie

    Last edited by Golden Eagle; 01-10-2014 at 08:31 PM.
    The news media plays politics more than the politicians do.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    earth's crust
    A big win Tuesday for the Erie man, who took the city of Erie to court for a city ordinance, which banned the right to carry guns in city parks.

    The Commonwealth Court on Tuesday, ruled the city's ordinance is "unlawful and unenforceable." Download the ruling.

  3. #3
    Regular Member jahwarrior72's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Nizzy EEzzy in da Pizzy
    This might be a win for the plaintiffs, but is not a real win for PA gun owners overall.
    Givin' up the tactical advantage since 2008.


  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    United States


    Quote Originally Posted by jahwarrior72 View Post
    This might be a win for the plaintiffs, but is not a real win for PA gun owners overall.

  5. #5
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Georgia, USA
    I'm also confused why it's not a "real" win.

    Reading the Commonwealth Ruling it seems to be a quite easy win.
    City Ordinance
    Section 955.06(b) of Erie City Ordinances says "No person in a park shall hunt, trap, or pursue wildlife at any time. No person shall use, carry or possess firearms of any descriptions ... (snipped)

    State Law
    Section 6120(a) of the Uniform Firearms Act, 18 Pa. C.S. Section 6120(a) states, "No county, municipality or township may in any manner regulate the lawful ownership, possession, transfer or transportation of firearms, ammunition or ammunition components when carried or transported for purposes not prohibited by the laws of this Commonwealth.

    The city code is preempted by State law, easy peasy lemon squeezy.
    Last edited by Fallschirmjäger; 01-12-2014 at 02:03 AM.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Curmudgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    York, Pennsylvania, USA
    Because of footnote 9 on page 9.

    It looks like the dicta suggests that, although municipalities may not criminalize carry, they
    can still prohibit it as a "rule", and ask/demand that you leave if found. A summary violation
    either way.

    The concern is that we will now see, popping up all over the place, the signs we have been
    successful in getting removed. Someone may have to be cited and we have to take this to
    court all over again.

    If pre-emption/6120 should still prevail then why add the footnote? We already have several
    townships claiming 6120 isn't as broad or as strong as we want to think it is, and both sides have
    been waiting for this decision.

    I can see both sides of the argument, and I was hoping for a cleaner and more strongly worded win.
    One without footnote 9.
    While many claim to support the right to keep and bear arms, precious few support the practice.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts