"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."I completely agree that no person should be allowed to bring a weapon into a government building or city park. The Ross Township massacre proves that it is all-too-easy for a mentally disturbed individual to go to a public meeting and blast away. But this change has to come from the state, nit Easton City Hall. So Panto's proposal will be rejected just as quickly as the law giving gun owners the right to sue.
Today's one-liner: "The shortest way to the distinguishing excellence of any writer is through his hostile critics." Richard LeGallienne
Local Government TV
▼
Wednesday, June 29, 2016
Panto Gun Proposal Pre-Empted
Easton Mayor Sal Panto has proposed a gun ban at city parks and city hall. This move comes after the state's Supreme Court invalidated a law that allows gun groups or any persons "adversely affected" by local gun control laws to sue. But state law still preempts any local regulation of firearms.
34 comments:
You own views are appreciated, especially if they differ from mine. But remember, commenting is a privilege, not a right. I will delete personal attacks or off-topic remarks at my discretion. Comments that play into the tribalism that has consumed this nation will be declined. So will comments alleging voter fraud unless backed up by concrete evidence. If you attack someone personally, I expect you to identify yourself. I will delete criticisms of my comment policy, vulgarities, cut-and-paste jobs from other sources and any suggestion of violence towards anyone. I will also delete sweeping generalizations about mainstream parties or ideologies, i.e. identity politics. My decisions on these matters are made on a case by case basis, and may be affected by my mood that day, my access to the blog at the time the comment was made or other information that isn’t readily apparent.
And everyone knows that criminals strictly adhere to gun laws and that gun-free zones are never targets of mass killings. Counter-intuitively, laws like this get innocent people killed. Maybe they deserve it for complaining about Panto's commuter tax.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the above statements.
ReplyDeleteIf that is the law then how can the county courthouse prohibit licensed weapon holders from having their guns in the courthouse or government Center. The law sounds pretty clear.
ReplyDeleteUnless the local municipality is prepared to scan everyone, as they do at the courthouse , such laws are meaningless, all they do is disarm the law-abiding. Laws only punish the law breaker after the commission of a crime, it has no power to stop the committed lawbreaker. It allows people have some nice emotional feelings, it seems that is what prompts most laws.
ReplyDelete3:55
ReplyDeleteThe law is already in place that prohibits armed citizens from bringing weapons into the Courthouse, post offices, etc.To the best of my knowledge it doesn't cover city halls.
It's just precious of Sal to believe that making a law banning guns will solve any problem. In fact, enacting this as a local law is illegal. But that doesn't stop determined social engineers from marching towards the hollow victory of "at least we are doing something".
ReplyDeleteWhat really saddens me is that the gun is blamed and not the person. A determined man will shoot the one or two people manning a metal detector and then have a whole building full of disarmed people from which to make ripe victim selections. But we passed a local law saying he couldn't bring a gun...
We've long passed the tangible threshold that disproves that gun laws save lives. They don't and cannot just as product safety warnings don't keep people from drowning in pools. This is a people issue and like it or not it takes good people with guns to stop bad people with guns.
I don't even believe that Sal has good intentions here. I see this as opportunistic and shameful social engineering. How about arming and training municipal employees and giving them a fighting chance. Instead you are claiming that hollow victory while inviting fate to visit and bring with it carnage at the hands of someone who doesn't care about the fact that your local laws are illegal. He's just there to pick ripe fruit.
Bernie,
ReplyDeleteWhy is it that the person that does these crimes is being a mental health reciepiant?!($
Could the reasons behind the hole issue be that political parasites are just passing the common man over the edge with there home school home home rules implemented and singled out upon one and not others in the exACT situation in the same area allowing the circus arena agenda to be incubated only in particulars?!($
I have always redd, and evaluated the cause and effex?!($ Now some are just pure idioceies just like the appointees and there push over the edge by design?!($
I agree with Ray Nemeth, if guns are to be banned at municipality meetings, then they should scan people on their way in or else have an armed security person on hand for all meetings. Obviously someone with ill intentions is not going to be deterred by a law, and the gun ban will just assure that no one else will be able to stop them.
ReplyDeleteNo gun control law is a good law. Those that want to feel good, should just go into a corner and pleasure themselves. Sal, please heed.
ReplyDeleteOf course Panto's law is illegal and pre-empted by the state, as is Pawlowski's in Allentown. But they (and their accomplices on council) know that no citizen will likely oppose it because they lack the financial resources and/or legal standing to challenge it (unless they are charged under the law).
ReplyDeleteThat combination allows will allow any new illegal law that is passed to remain on the books, and is precisely why the state law allowing outside groups to sue municipalities is needed.
Panto and Pawlowski are bullies, and (when the state originally passed the law) they both scurried under rocks as their illegal laws were rescinded with the possibility of legal action. Now that the threat of litigation is lifted, these little pukes are crawling back out trying to reinstate their illegal gun laws.
Disgusting!
It's interesting that Ross Township is mentioned in the post.
ReplyDeleteMy recollection is that the shooter actually started shooting from outside the building, and then walked into a building filled with unarmed people. Luckily, two unarmed people overpowered the gunman and stopped the shooting.
I'm not sure what the law was in Ross Township at the time as far as bringing a weapon into the building, but I'm certain that prohibiting weapons at meetings did (or would have done) nothing to stop the gunman.
BTW, Rudy Miller told me to tell everyone he had this first.
ReplyDeleteBernie: I am glad you agree any PA Municipality must adhere to the current State Laws. Your logic though on having weapons banned in parks or municipal buildings is not, well ....logical. These "gun free zones" mean nothing to criminals or crazy mentally disturbed persons. You cannot logically tell me a law banning guns in that building would have stopped Ross Township.
ReplyDeleteI agree with alot of what you say, but this subject is where your liberal "feel good" views cloud your very logical attorney brain. (that made me laugh a little)
I know for a fact that there is a Lawyer already preparing law suites against Easton and Harrisburg. This will cost the taxpayers money, they should be annoyed.
Gun Free zones have jumped the shark and are killing Americans.
Ross Township would not have been prevented by this law; neither would last night's Easton shooting. Bad guys don't follow laws and gun-free areas are hunting grounds for bad guys who get to reload without resistance and cause mass casualties.
ReplyDeleteCriminals don't buy guns from gun stores, and they don't worry about city ordances with regards to "gun free" zones.
ReplyDeleteA "Gun Free" zone is arguably a killing field for a criminal, knowing that good standing citizens are unarmed and obeying the law
Thank you,9:00 & 9:16. I was ready to make the same point. Bernie didn't think this one through.
ReplyDelete"If that is the law then how can the county courthouse prohibit licensed weapon holders from having their guns in the courthouse or government Center. The law sounds pretty clear."
ReplyDeleteEWeapons are banned there bc STATE law says they are banned there. If that law did not exist, there is no way that a judge would be able to prevent someone from walking into his courtroom with a gun at his side.
"Unless the local municipality is prepared to scan everyone, as they do at the courthouse , such laws are meaningless,"
ReplyDeleteAs I pointed out, an ordinance banning guns at city hall or in parks is more than meaningless - it is unlawful. But I think guns should be banned inside every government building. IThere are too many wing nuts out there who can do too much damage.
"Your logic though on having weapons banned in parks or municipal buildings is not, well ....logical. These "gun free zones" mean nothing to criminals or crazy mentally disturbed persons. You cannot logically tell me a law banning guns in that building would have stopped Ross Township."
ReplyDeleteLet's see. We know that there are numerous incidents of mass shootings. e know that they include public places like Ross Township, where a lunatic was most definitely on his way inside to kill everyone there until he was tackled. We know that emotions can run very high during government meetings, and that the government is often viewed as "The enemy." This it is completely logical to ban weapons inside governmental buildings, and if desired, to scan people who visit. But is is pre-empted by state law. What Panto is proposing is illegal, but I would change the statelaw in a heartbeat.
Bernie Bernie,
DeleteIf this lunitic truly planned to kill everyone in Ross twsp he would have been mosieying in with a couple of 9s and a tommy gun with two full hundred round cans?!($
There had to be specifics in the shooters agenda?!($
Which one of my descriptive yet in descriptive part does Pinto play in the triboro circus sticks surrounding epicentral?!
RE:publican redd no party affiliation
ReplyDeleteAny person who has standing can challenge the law. I would oppose opening up the floodgates to every Tom, Dick and Harry and give them the automatic right to sue. But there are numerous entities that have a duty to defend state law. The Attorney General is one such person. Similarly, there are several members of the state legislature who could sue.
Instead of wasting taxpayers money with lawsuits, I would change state law to ban guns inside any government building.
"I agree with Ray Nemeth, if guns are to be banned at municipality meetings, then they should scan people on their way in or else have an armed security person on hand for all meetings. Obviously someone with ill intentions is not going to be deterred by a law, and the gun ban will just assure that no one else will be able to stop them"
ReplyDeleteNo, it's not. But it is going to stop someone who comes to a meeting carrying his concealed firearm and who gets very upset over a zoning matter or code enforcement issue.
Please list some examples of all the heat-of-passion killings at public meetings. Newell doesn't count, as he was outside and hadn't attended the meeting. I'll bet public meetings are one of the safest places on Earth. State or local, this is another government solution looking for a problem.
ReplyDeleteGun Free Zones.. if cops see someone walking around kids at recess packing heat they can remove them. I don't want to be at some heated city council meeting with a bunch of gun slingers either Or some ballgame where a ump could get shot by some player with a piece on em. What the hell's the matter with you people !!!
ReplyDelete@3:04 Just wait till a terrorists comes into your little ballpark and starts shooting up the crowd and blows himself up with a suicide vest. Happened in Istanbul Airport yesterday; it can happen at Coca-Cola park as well.
ReplyDelete"Please list some examples of all the heat-of-passion killings at public meetings. Newell doesn't count, as he was outside and hadn't attended the meeting. I'll bet public meetings are one of the safest places on Earth. State or local, this is another government solution looking for a problem."
ReplyDeleteAre you out of your mind? Of course Newell counts. He knoew the township was having the meeting, and the only reason he never went in is because he started firing from the outside. There is no dispute that mass shootings are on the rise here in the US, and the state government should ban possession in any government building. People who work for a small borough or township should know they can do their job without being intimidated. In larger venues, from movie theatres to amusement parks to stadiums, the property owners have a right to ban any person who is carrying a weapon. That should become standard procedure.
Bernie, I understand you go to a lot of meetings, and should be commended for your civic interest. You better get armed , as these meetings may very well get more crazy, I hope you do not get in middle of some bad actors.
ReplyDeleteLike Clint Eastwood and Charlton Heston?
ReplyDeleteRay, I do go to a lot of meetings, and have been accosted numerous times for my views. But I would never arm myself. T admit that there's a certain amount of beauty in a firearm. I love to listen to experts discuss them. But they are not for me. I was in the service and already know I am a lousy shot. I suspect that most of these firearms carriers are lousy shots, too. It is just not smart to carry a loaded weapon into a meeting that could go off through the ineptitude of the handler and kill an innocent person. I rely on my pen, my tongue, my camera and, if necessary, my legs. I'm the fastest fat guy in the world when i have to be.
ReplyDeleteI know all of that Bernie, It was just an opportunity to taunt you a little.
ReplyDeleteBernie,
ReplyDeleteIn all that explination, you forgot the all important glorified new fangled type writter at a fingers touch?!)$
It seems that Sal has a problem with open carry
ReplyDeleteThe measure would not apply to police or to those who have a permit to carry a concealed weapon.
"If someone has been vetted for a concealed weapon they have the right and frankly I have no problem, because they have been cleared (to carry the weapon)," Panto said.
It's still illegal to pass the ordinance and hopefully it will be legally challenged.
Also, PA does not issue a permit to carry a concealed weapon. PA issues the LTCF - License to carry firearms. The LTCF doesn't stipulate concealed or open carry.
DeleteSmall town politician pandering.
ReplyDelete