• 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.

An carry win over Erie


Jan 14, 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.


Apr 10, 2007
, ,
This might be a win for the plaintiffs, but is not a real win for PA gun owners overall.


Active member
Aug 4, 2007
Cumming, 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:


Regular Member
Jul 17, 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.