Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Chestnuthill Twp. to reconsider gun-possession ordinance(PA)
poconorecord.com ^ | 28 May, 2012 | Chad Smith

Posted on 05/28/2012 6:33:20 AM PDT by marktwain

Chestnuthill Township supervisors will consider whether a township ordinance prohibiting guns in the township park should be repealed.

The ordinance may conflict with a state law that says that municipalities don't have the authority to limit the rights of gun owners as long as the owners act in accordance with state gun laws.

The possible conflict of local and state laws was brought to the township's attention by Brodheadsville resident William Gray.

Gray doesn't want to fear being punished if he carries a firearm into Chestnuthill Park, he said. Gray said that, among other reasons, he'd like to have a gun on him in the park in case a rabid animal tries to attack him or his dog.

Gray believes the township rule conflicts with a state law, passed in 1995, that says, "No county, municipality or township may in any manner regulate the lawful ownership possession, transfer or transportation of firearms "¦ when (those firearms are) carried or transported for purposes not prohibited by the laws of this Commonwealth."

None of the Chestnuthill supervisors who passed the gun ordinance is still on the job.

Supervisors may have created the rule before the state law was passed or may not have known such a law existed, said Chris Eckert, a current Chestnuthill Township supervisor. Eckert said township supervisors weren't gung-ho about possibly changing a rule that would allow people to carry guns into the township park and park building. But, Eckert said, if the township rule flies in the face of a state law, supervisors might feel compelled to amend it.

"It's a controversial issue, where you have Second Amendment rights and state laws, and then you have people on the other side of the coin who don't think that it's a good idea that people are carrying guns," Eckert said.

Eckert said supervisors would discuss the issue at their next meeting.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events; US: Pennsylvania
KEYWORDS: banglist; chestnut; pa; preemption
Where is the controversy? The supervisors will either follow the Constitution and state law, or they will violate their oaths of office.
1 posted on 05/28/2012 6:33:26 AM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: marktwain

They should be imprisoned, period.


2 posted on 05/28/2012 6:39:35 AM PDT by Gaffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
Chestnuthill Township supervisors will consider whether a township ordinance prohibiting guns in the township park should be repealed. The ordinance may conflict with a state law that says that municipalities don't have the authority to limit the rights of gun owners as long as the owners act in accordance with state gun laws.

Ya think?

3 posted on 05/28/2012 7:46:18 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (Government is the religion of the sociopath.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

For those FReepers who are not familiar with the area, Broadheadsville is just across the border from New Jersey along Interstate 80.

It has become home to many, many NY/NJ transplants, many of whom still commute into NYC for work.

As always, they bring their liberalism with them.


4 posted on 05/28/2012 9:40:54 AM PDT by Erik Latranyi (When religions have to beg the gov't for a waiver, we are already under socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi
Thank you for the local knowledge. It is one of the many attributes that make freerepublic such a valuable site.
5 posted on 05/28/2012 9:43:55 AM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
Mr. Eckert posted this in the article's Comments section. Seems like another case of "something lost in the translation" when dealing with reporters. I paragraphed it for easier reading.

OK, please let me set the record straight. I never said that "Supervisors weren't gung-ho about possibly changing a rule that would allow people to carry guns into the township park and park building." What I said is that I couldn't speak for the other supervisors regarding this matter and that it would be deliberated at a future public meeting.

I also told the reporter that it was my opinion that Mr. Gray was correct in his assertion that Chestnuthill's ordinance was contrary to state law. I did state a fact that this is a controversial issue in that there are people with opinions on both sides of the issue. Again, this is a fact. If it wasn't, there wouldn't be a discussion about this at all.

I will tell you the following about myself: I am a member of the NRA. I possess a concealed carry permit. Anyone who has seen the several letters I have written to the Pocono Record will understand that I in no way seek to limit the rights of law abiding citizens to exercise their Second Amendment rights. In regard to the Second Amendment, I understand the framers' intent and am a constitutional literalist in that I hold to the motto "What part of 'shall not be infringed' don't you understand?"

I urged our legislators to support the "Castle Doctrine" law as well as the bill now pending strengthening the State's preemption law. I believe that zones designated as "gun free" only apply to people who obey the law, not those who are bent on harming others. They should be called "defense free zones." I do not fear a fellow law abiding citizen who carries a weapon and refuses to allow him/herself to be a victim. Can I make it any clearer than that? Chris Eckert

6 posted on 05/28/2012 10:39:31 AM PDT by Oatka (This is America. Assimilate or evaporate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oatka

Who cares about the “other side of the coin who don’t think that it’s a good idea that people are carrying guns.” The law is being violated by the local ordinance, and it needs to be fixed regardless of how some feel about guns. You have no authority by which to allow this breach of the 2nd amendment to continue. Repeal the law and call it a day.


7 posted on 05/28/2012 1:58:05 PM PDT by NJDrew1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson