• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Dickson City Police Chief Stadnitski works to encourage businesses to ban gun carry!

Mike

Site Co-Founder
Joined
May 13, 2006
Messages
8,706
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
imported post

Here I my quick observations on the article:

Good points: There appears to be some acceptance by the police chief that gun carry is not a crime, and the City Attorney recognizes that localities have no power to regulate guns, and state legislators want nothing to do with banning open carry or enacting gun registrtation.

Bad points: Police chief is encouraging businesses to ban all gun carry, concealed and unconcealed, and post their premises. Sounds like a violation of preemtion at least in spirit. "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." 18 Pa. C.S. 6120(a). Further, by stating that the police will not respond at all to 911 calls about a man with a gun unless a specific law is alleged to be broken, the police chief seems to conflate "sending a police unit to check out a 911 call" with "violations of gun owners rights by officers on the call." This misses the point that there was nothing wrong in dispatching the police to the Old Country Buffett - the officers should have responded, once dispatched, investigated by taking a look around, talked with a few folks, and left.

NOTE: As far as I know, Dicks Sporting goods and Home Depot corporate policy does not allow posting against gun carry and assimilates state law for customers. So let have some Scranton area folks scout out these businesses and report back if they are posted.
--

http://www.thetimes-tribune.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=19718990&BRD=2185&PAG=461&dept_id=415898&rfi=6

Businesses banning guns

BY CHARLES SCHILLINGER
STAFF WRITER

05/25/2008

DICKSON CITY — Police Chief William Stadnitski opened a letter Friday from Long John Silver’s and read again the same business policy he has seen two dozen times since a May 9 incident in his borough.

No guns allowed.

The Police Department has been querying businesses to see where people are allowed to carry weapons, and where it is prohibited by company policy.

The query follows an incident in which a dozen customers at Old Country Buffet were questioned by police for openly carrying guns. One person was detained and his gun confiscated.

To Chief Stadnitski’s surprise, the response from business owners has been overwhelmingly against allowing gun-carrying patrons in their establishments.

“And many, they’re not just saying ‘no.’ They’re very vocal about this,” he said. “We expected more businesses to allow it.”

The only Dickson City business that has said it will allow customers to carry firearms to date is Cartridge World, said Chief Stadnitski.

Dickson City solicitor William Jones said guns are also not allowed in schools and courthouses. He said municipalities have no power to regulate or restrict gun use.

“Any redress would have to come from the (state) Legislature,” Mr. Jones said.

State legislators largely did not return calls for comment on the gun-rights issue in Dickson City.

State Sen. Robert Mellow, D-Peckville, said any change in the gun legislation would be difficult, and he would not be in favor of it. Rep. Ed Staback, D-Archbald, who also represents Dickson City, made similar statements recently.

“Guns are not the problem. It’s some of the people who have them,” Mr. Mellow said. “If we were to restrict them further, then those who shouldn’t have guns would be the only ones who have them.”

Sen. Lisa Baker, whose district includes parts of Wayne, Luzerne, Susquehanna, Wyoming, Pike and Monroe counties, did not return a call, but released a short statement saying she supported the right of citizens to bear arms.

Almost a year ago, a Philadelphia state representative introduced a bill that would require strict gun-registration measures and require a $10-a-gun yearly tax.

The protests were immediate and, for fellow Democrats like Rep. Tim Seip, D-Schuylkill, uncomfortable. Mr. Seip’s district is often referred to as the “Cabela’s District” since it is home to the state’s only Cabela’s retail store. The business is one of the largest suppliers of hunting, fishing and other outdoor supplies.

“I think there is an overwhelming sentiment from my constituents ... to have them be less restrictive,” Mr. Seip said of existing laws.

He called a recent incident in which a Philadelphia police officer was shot “terrible,” but said more laws wouldn’t solve the issue despite people lobbying for just that.

“There are people in the commonwealth, constituents of my colleagues, who are very desperate to find an answer to the remedy of these acts by terrible, habitual criminals,” Mr. Seip said. “But those terrible acts won’t be remedied by more laws.”

The law states people have a right to openly carry weapons in public. But Chief Stadnitski said it is a business’s right to kick those people off the property if carrying a weapon there violates policies. He is encouraging businesses to post such policies for customers.

Anyone refusing to leave a business when asked by the owner can be arrested for defiant trespass.

Chief Stadnitski said the list of businesses that have opted to prohibit guns includes the entire Viewmont Mall and many larger chains, such as PetSmart, Borders, Sleepy’s, Home Depot and even Dick’s Sporting Goods, which sells gun-related products.

Because many of the larger chain businesses are waiting for responses from corporate headquarters, police have not finished compiling the list.

Chief Stadnitski said the police wanted that list so they know where in the borough they should respond should someone be openly carrying a gun. Otherwise, unless another law is broken, police will not respond to a report of a person carrying a gun in those businesses.

“Nobody wants trouble. They don’t want trouble, and certainly we don’t trouble, either,” he said.
 

Renegade

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2007
Messages
270
Location
Yorktown, VA, ,
imported post

Simply amazing...this Chief has admitted to spending citizen’s tax dollars in a direct attempt to prevent lawful citizens from taking advantage of our God-given right to self defense.

Here is my opinion:

A privately owned house is private property and the owner decides who may visit his property.

Pubilically owned property belongs to all of us - federal and state laws apply.

If any business is open to the general public how on earth are they able to restrict rights? How about a business that posts a sign proclaiming that "only white Christians allowed" and if any others dare to enter the business owner calls the police and the folks are escorted out complete with trespass papers?

Or, maybe the business should post a sign stating that "all whom enter are subject to unreasonable search and unlimited seizure." If the owner wishes, he may perform a cavity search upon anyone who happens to enter the store - and maybe of they hit it off he can call Chief Stadnitski to let him know that "this is a keeper!"

I just fail to understand how a business open to the public can restrict rights. And privately owned is used far too loosely - if the business is available for public trading of stock - I don't necessarily consider that a "private" business as much as I consider it a non-governmental one.
 

t3rmin

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2008
Messages
302
Location
USA
imported post

Wonder if patrolling in front of these victim disarmament zone businesses with gun rights fliers and politely intercepting customers would help?
 

Big Gay Al

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Aug 27, 2006
Messages
1,944
Location
Mason, Michigan, USA
imported post

As much as I hate to say it, a business is still private property. And the owners of such do have the right to say "No" to guns. We also have the right to do business else where.
 

tracylaud83

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2008
Messages
112
Location
Ocala, Florida, USA
imported post

But if the Chief is telling buissnesses that the cops will not respond to a "Man with Gun" call if the place allows Open Carry.

Of course they will BAN guns. They want the cops to respond if they really need them, No questions.

This doesn't sound right....
 

Pa. Patriot

State Researcher
Joined
May 4, 2007
Messages
1,441
Location
Just a "wannabe" in Mtn. Top, Pennsylvania, USA
imported post

tracylaud83 wrote:
But if the Chief is telling buissnesses that the cops will not respond to a "Man with Gun" call if the place allows Open Carry.

Of course they will BAN guns. They want the cops to respond if they really need them, No questions.

This doesn't sound right....

Exactly, as Mike points out, the Cheif is now "encouraging" businesses to post against guns. Clearly a violation of 18PACS6120

Way to go Stadnitski. The only thing he definitively knows how to do is garner lawsuits for his department. Just as well, the citizens of DC deserve to pay the taxes needed to fill these lawsuits. As we found out from the city council meeting, they blindly support this idiot and his band of under trained officers that he give badges to.
 

Skeptic

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2007
Messages
585
Location
Goochland, Virginia, USA
imported post

Pa. Patriot wrote:
tracylaud83 wrote:
But if the Chief is telling buissnesses that the cops will not respond to a "Man with Gun" call if the place allows Open Carry.

Of course they will BAN guns. They want the cops to respond if they really need them, No questions.

This doesn't sound right....

Exactly, as Mike points out, the Cheif is now "encouraging" businesses to post against guns. Clearly a violation of 18PACS6120

Way to go Stadnitski. The only thing he definitively knows how to do is garner lawsuits for his department. Just as well, the citizens of DC deserve to pay the taxes needed to fill these lawsuits. As we found out from the city council meeting, they blindly support this idiot and his band of under trained officers that he give badges to.
Typical bureacrat tactic, I guess it should be expected as a scapegoating technique when when the goon squad tactics were revealed to be illegal.

It is almost like a protection racket in reverse, when you think about it. We won't protect your business if you dare allow a citizen to defend themselves.

Do the businesses also have to put up signs saying robbery is not allowed before they will respond to a robbery call? Or is it only LEGAL activities that this chief is spending his time trying to stop?
 

apjonas

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2006
Messages
1,157
Location
, ,
imported post

Renegade wrote:
Simply amazing...this Chief has admitted to spending citizen’s tax dollars in a direct attempt to prevent lawful citizens from taking advantage of our God-given right to self defense.
Explain. I saw nothing that changes any law. As for not responding to a report of open carry (absent something else). Isn't that what we want?

Here is my opinion:

A privately owned house is private property and the owner decides who may visit his property.
So far so good (there are a few exceptions).
Pubilically owned property belongs to all of us - federal and state laws apply.
Not really. An individual citizen has no property interest in public buildings (generally speaking). State law may or may not apply to federal property (but usually do by assimilation by the feds).

If any business is open to the general public how on earth are they able to restrict rights? How about a business that posts a sign proclaiming that "only white Christians allowed" and if any others dare to enter the business owner calls the police and the folks are escorted out complete with trespass papers?
"Open to the General Public" in this context means that the owner has issued a blanket invitation for anyone to enter in contemplation of doing business. You can't enter for the purpose of setting upa three-card Monte table, making a political speech or price checking for the competition. Discrimination on the basis of race or religion in this context violates federal (and probably state) law. There is no law that states excluding otherwise admissible members of the public on the basis of carrying a weapon, minority age, dress, smell etc. is prohibited (except in some weird localities).

Or, maybe the business should post a sign stating that "all whom enter are subject to unreasonable search and unlimited seizure." If the owner wishes, he may perform a cavity search upon anyone who happens to enter the store - and maybe of they hit it off he can call Chief Stadnitski to let him know that "this is a keeper!"

I just fail to understand how a business open to the public can restrict rights. And privately owned is used far too loosely - if the business is available for public trading of stock - I don't necessarily consider that a "private" business as much as I consider it a non-governmental one.
Well, I just tried to explain the concept. I hope it helps. Here, private does mean non-governmental or non-public (as in public schools). Whether or not an implicit invitation is made to the general public (Wal*Mart), Old Country Buffet, etc. or an explicit invitation to specific people (your home) does not determine whether or not a business is private. If you held an "open house" as part of trying to sell your home, would you have waived your right to exclude any person?
 

lockman

State Researcher
Joined
Aug 19, 2006
Messages
1,193
Location
Elgin, Illinois, USA
imported post

Are there any business owners out there willing to post their business "gun free". Then threaten the first police officer that comes in, not acting in his official capacity, with trespass is he does not leave immediately. After all it is private property and the owner/operator is within his rights to do so.
What would happen if the only donut shop in town did just that?:lol:
 

Shy_Panda

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2008
Messages
336
Location
Spokane / Pullman, Washington, USA
imported post

That wouldn't work, according to federal law LEO can carry where and when they want with few exceptions, business owners have no say in it whatsoever.

I think that this totally makes sense in PA, after all everyone in the state is depressed and angry so they kling to their bibles and their guns,accordingly only angry crazy people own guns... it all makes sense if you really think about it.
 

Steve in PA

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2006
Messages
158
Location
Somewhere in PA
imported post

LEOSA states LEO's must adhere to state (not local) laws that gives private property owners the right to limit the carrying of weapons.
 

Mike

Site Co-Founder
Joined
May 13, 2006
Messages
8,706
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
imported post

Steve in PA wrote:
LEOSA states LEO's must adhere to state (not local) laws that gives private property owners the right to limit the carrying of weapons.
There is really no difference between local and state laws - localities are mere creations of a state. What is the precise immunity text for LEOs set forth in federal law that puports to override state law? I have a feeling it is either unconstitutional or requires state action to keep a subsidy.
 

Big Gay Al

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Aug 27, 2006
Messages
1,944
Location
Mason, Michigan, USA
imported post

I don't know about PA law, but IL law has specific exemptions for LEO's and others, as to who can or can't carry firearms, concealed or otherwise. I would hazard a guess that most state's have similar exemptions.
 

Steve in PA

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2006
Messages
158
Location
Somewhere in PA
imported post




[align=left]‘‘§ 926B. Carrying of concealed firearms by qualified[/align]


[align=left]law enforcement officers[/align]

[align=left]‘‘(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of the law[/align]

[align=left]of any State or any political subdivision thereof, an indi[/align]

[align=left]vidual who is a qualified law enforcement officer and who[/align]


[align=left]is carrying the identification required by subsection (d)[/align]

[align=left]may carry a concealed firearm that has been shipped or[/align]

[align=left]transported in interstate or foreign commerce, subject to[/align]

[align=left]subsection (b).[/align]

[align=left]‘‘(b) This section shall not be construed to supersede[/align]

[align=left]or limit the laws of any State that—[/align]

[align=left]‘‘(1) permit private persons or entities to pro[/align]

[align=left]hibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms[/align]


[align=left]on their property; or[/align]

[align=left]‘‘(2) prohibit or restrict the possession of fire[/align]

[align=left]arms on any State or local government property, in
[/align]stallation, building, base, or park.
 

apjonas

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2006
Messages
1,157
Location
, ,
imported post

Pa. Patriot wrote:
IOW: 926B alows LEO to carry in all 50 states but it does NOT override the rights of private property. ...Just like Steve posted originally. ;)


It depends upon what you mean by "private."

Let me say first that I think LEOSA is unconstitutional. If any state or city took the time to litigate, it would go away. However, since it is in force now, let us consider the various cases. And note that it applies only to concealed carry. Open carry restrictions are not impacted.

LEO carrying privileges are, by and large, controlled by state law, city ordinances and departmental policy. Federal law comes into play on federal facilities. LEOSA does not negate departmental employment rules. A LEO can be fired for carrying in violation of departmental policy (although not prosecuted) and then would not be covered by LEOSA. Municipal law would come into play only if state law provides for its application.


[/b]STATE LAW APP LEOSA SEC RESULT

[/b]PERMITSNOT APPLICABLE CC PERMITTED[/b]

[/b]PROHIBITSGEN PROVISIONS[/b]CC PERMITTED
[/b]

[/b]SILENTNOT APPLICABLE CC PERMITTED
[/b]
[/b]PROHIBITSb(1) or b(2) CC [/b]PROHIBITED
[/b]

[/b]So whether or not a LEO may carry on private property (or b(2) government property), is determined wholly bylocal law, EXCEPT a “qualified” LEO may carry concealed, state law notwithstanding, in any non-b(1) or b(2) situation. This would be a case where there is no local law prohibition (not likely). Here “private property” is meant to be non-governmental property, generally open to the public (Wal*Mart). [/b]


Although not specifically addressed, established constitutional law says that this section would not permit a LEO to carry (in other than an official capacity) on truly private property (e.g. your home) against the owner’s wishes even in the absence of local law covered under b(2). Thus if there were no local laws covered by b(1) or b(2), LEOSA would enable a LEO to carry in Old Country Buffet but not your new country home (unless you consented). The same analysis would be applicable to retired LEO's who are eligible under 18 USC 926C.

[/b]
[/b][/b][/b]
 

Machoduck

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2007
Messages
566
Location
Covington, WA & Keenesburg, CO
imported post

If Chief Stadnitski is implying less than normal police response when the caller is on the list of businesses that allow open carry then he is guilty of coercion and should be arrested and put on trial just as any other criminal would be. Does anyone know how a citizen can cause the Chief to be arrested for his crime? I presume that Pennsy residency would be required.

MD
 

Mike

Site Co-Founder
Joined
May 13, 2006
Messages
8,706
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
imported post

OK, so, is this act called "POPA"?:cool:

--


§926B. Carrying of concealed firearms by qualified law enforcement officers
(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of the law of any State or any political subdivision thereof, an individual who is a qualified law enforcement officer and who is carrying the identification required by subsection (d) may carry a concealed firearm that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, subject to subsection (b).

921 of this title); and
921 of this title).
 

apjonas

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2006
Messages
1,157
Location
, ,
imported post

Machoduck wrote:
If Chief Stadnitski is implying less than normal police response when the caller is on the list of businesses that allow open carry then he is guilty of coercion and should be arrested and put on trial just as any other criminal would be. Does anyone know how a citizen can cause the Chief to be arrested for his crime? I presume that Pennsy residency would be required.

MD

Why? Consider this hypothetical call:

1. Citizen: I'm the manager at the Choke 'n Puke Restaurant. There is a man with a gun at the counter!

2. Chief S.: What is he doing? Where is the gun?

3. Citizen: Quietly eating clam chowder. The gun is holstered.

4. Chief S.: My information indicates that the C 'n P does not prohibit firearms.

5. Citizen: Yes, that is our policy but I'm afraid he scare off the old ladies who come in for the early bird special.

6. Chief S.: Well, you would have to change your policy and post in conformance with the law. If he threatens anyone or pulls the gun out, give us a call back. Otherwise - have a nice day.

Now suppose that line 3 is changed to one of the following:

Swearing at the other customers and twirling the gun on his finger.

Demanding cash from Betty the cashier. Pointed at her head.

Urinating on the bar. Scratching his private parts.

Do you really think the Chief is going to say "Tough luck, you should have prohibited firearms in your joint!" I think he is saying, rightly so, that his department is not going to respond to legal carry (by itself). I consider that a win. Can't you guys take Yes for an answer?
 
Top