1911Forum banner

1 - 10 of 10 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,019 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I know there are a handful of members on the board who live in central PA, specifically the State College area.

Despite this:

18 PA. STAT. ANN. §6120 (2011)
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


They're trying to keep you from carrying firearms in public parks (the same parks where several people have been attacked in recent years):
http://www.centredaily.com/2015/08/17/4880044_state-college-borough-council.html?rh=1

Contact your local reps!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
612 Posts
I grew up there. I feel more like stranger every time I visit. That town has become increasingly leftist so this measure does not surprise me. It will be a looser in the courts though. State preemption trumps the wishes of fiefdoms.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,845 Posts
Any ordinance they pass is not worth the paper it's printed on. State preemption overrides.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
612 Posts
After reading the article (instead of simply skimming it yesterday) it seems the egotistical liberals on the council are only considering the such an ordinance.

If those dolts try it, I hope they hemorrhage lots of green in legal fees and court costs. We have preemption in PA, in large part for law uniformity and in part to defend against overreaching borough councils.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,914 Posts
Councilwoman Theresa Lafer said she was one of the council members requesting the issue be readdressed, saying it’s a reasonable request to ask someone who legally owns a firearm to put it somewhere safe if he or she wants to enter a borough-owned building or play in a public park.

“I do not see any reason why people should be wandering around in public with guns in any case,” she said. “But separately from that, in public places, I find them offensive, and I’m a gun owner myself.”


These liberal loons love to throw a line like this in to make themselves credible. It's just the same as, "I support the 2nd Amendment but......."

Fools
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,234 Posts
Councilwoman Theresa Lafer said she was one of the council members requesting the issue be readdressed, saying it’s a reasonable request to ask someone who legally owns a firearm to put it somewhere safe if he or she wants to enter a borough-owned building or play in a public park.

“I do not see any reason why people should be wandering around in public with guns in any case,” she said. “But separately from that, in public places, I find them offensive, and I’m a gun owner myself.”


These liberal loons love to throw a line like this in to make themselves credible. It's just the same as, "I support the 2nd Amendment but......."

Fools
There are a lot of members here who have said the exact same thing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
677 Posts
I know there are a handful of members on the board who live in central PA, specifically the State College area.

Despite this:

18 PA. STAT. ANN. §6120 (2011)
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


They're trying to keep you from carrying firearms in public parks (the same parks where several people have been attacked in recent years):
http://www.centredaily.com/2015/08/17/4880044_state-college-borough-council.html?rh=1

Contact your local reps!
Criminals do prefer unarmed victims. Maybe some of the anti-gunners are trying to keep the criminals safe because some of them have kin who vote liberals
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
539 Posts
If those dolts try it, I hope they hemorrhage lots of green in legal fees and court costs.
You mean *we*? With Seattle illegally passing a tax on firearms and ammunition in violation of the state preemption laws, I'm sure the sad fact is that the money wasted, from the council members working to the upcoming legal battles, will be in some way or form offset by federal funds.

It will be indirect, "we don't have money to fix these potholes so we need federal help", but I have a sneaking suspicion the idiots who elected the morons making the laws aren't the only ones that will suffer financially.

That isn't fair to any US taxpayer. Not sure if possible or not, but if there is public record of the elected officials being informed of the laws prohibiting what they decide to do, they should be sued individually, and the award should be legal fees and the costs of their decisions.
 
1 - 10 of 10 Posts
Top