search
top

Local Park Bans in Pennsylvania

It appears that Hazle Township is digging in its heels on its ban in public parks, citing Minich v. Jefferson County (previous appeal here), and arguing that the township can prohibit guns in parks because it’s used by school children.  These are fairly bogus arguments, but let’s look for a minute at their use of Minich.

Minich was brought against Jefferson County because the county had an ordinance that prohibited firearms in the court house, and subjected entrants to a security checkpoint The plantiffs refused the checkpoint search, and were denied entry. The Commonwealth Court dismissed the preemption claim because state law prohibits firearms in courthouses, and thus the applicable clause in our preemption law applied:

In other words, the County may not enact an ordinance which regulates firearm possession if the ordinance would make the otherwise lawful possession of a firearm unlawful.3 Thus, if the County’s ordinance pertains only to the unlawful possession of firearms, i.e., possession “prohibited by the laws of this Commonwealth,” then section 6120(a) of the Crimes Code does not preempt the County’s ordinance.

The problem with Hazle Township’s reasoning is that guns are not prohibited in public parks in Pennsylvania.  State Parks are off limits by virtue of DCNR regulations, not through state law.  Hazle Township is on very shaky legal ground claiming preemption does not cover public parks.  Especially given that the General Assembly has voted, overwhelmingly, for a measure to recind the DCNR’s ability to regulate firearms in State Parks.  Even if The Commonwealth’s Courts accept that because DCNR claims the power to regulate firearms in state parks, that local governments may also claim that power, it’s an argument very likely to be ended when the Senate decides to take up HB 1845.

2 Responses to “Local Park Bans in Pennsylvania”

  1. ATL says:

    Well,

    Looks like another local politician can be ground under the wheels of the court system. These people never learn……..

  2. Check out Com. v. Ingram, 814 A.2d 264 (Pa.Super.2002) to further refute this notion of §912 extending wherever the students may be when away from the actual school.

    Audio from the township meeting is now up on my blog too.

top