search
top

Reconsidering Illegal Ordinances

Looks like Chestnuthill Township in Pennsylvania is considering repealing a ban on guns in parks, which has been in violation of state law for some time now. A lot of towns and counties have these illegal ordinances still on the books. I’m glad people are bringing these issues to the attention of local communities. Many are unaware the ordinances are unlawful. Now if only we could get people hounding their MAIG mayors, we’d be set.

6 Responses to “Reconsidering Illegal Ordinances”

  1. Robb Allen says:

    Try making them personally responsible for violating the law.

    Works wonders. ;)

  2. Drifter says:

    “Now if only we could get people to replace their MAIG mayors, we’d be set.” Fixed it for you.

  3. Zermoid says:

    With preemption in PA isn’t it already “repealed” by State Law?

    • Andy B. says:

      “With preemption in PA isn’t it already “repealed” by State Law?”

      Silly boy. That’s what I thought back in 1964 after [the first time] local hunting ordinances were declared unconstitutional in PA. When I was locked up under a local hunting ordinance, the judge’s response to my citation of what the state Supreme Court had done the year before was, “Shut the [eff] up, you’re guilty!” It cost $500 (in 1964 dollars) to appeal and prove I was right, but to the best of my knowledge the municipality kept the ordinance on its books (or one just like it) anyway, and enforced it on and off over the years.

      There is no downside — none at all — for them keeping an unlawful ordinance on the books and enforcing it when it suits them. It is up to the defendants to prove they are wrong, usually on their own dime. There is no requirement that, when proven wrong, the offending officials so much as slap themselves on the forehead with the heel of their hand and say “Oh, silly me.”

      There have been (and may be currently; I’m not sure what became of it) attempts to put some punitive teeth in the preemption laws, but these were met with resistance by the antis who pretty successfully changed the subject from preemption, per se, to arguing the merits of some laws that might be preempted. The public just can’t comprehend these things.

    • Sebastian says:

      Yeah, pretty much what Andy said. Just because it’s illegal doesn’t mean they aren’t going to try to enforce it on you. They absolutely will, and then the burden will fall on you to show the ordinance is preempted. That means hiring a lawyer.

      That’s one reason the preemption enhancement bill is important, because it would make them pay for it if you prevail.

      • Robb Allen says:

        The added benefit to adding teeth to laws like this are the tears of politicians. They’re sweet, non-caloric, and there will be a lot of them.

        Oh, and their wailing and gnashing of teeth will lull you into sleep at night.

top