Pa. Open Carry ~Responsible carry, in the open.

From the Scranton Times This morning

County rules on guns could be unconstitutional
By Charles Schillinger (Staff Writer)
Published: June 10, 2010

New rules on guns in Lackawanna County parks adopted by county commissioners last month are being challenged by local law enforcement as too lenient, and by gun-law experts as possibly unconstitutional.

Commissioners approved rules and regulations prohibiting smoking, skateboarding and other activities in county parks, including new restrictions on guns. The rule says, "No unlicensed firearms or weapons are allowed in a park." Discharging a firearm is also prohibited.

Olyphant resident Keith MacDonald challenged the language at a commissioners meeting Wednesday, saying there is no license for guns in Pennsylvania and arguing the county cannot prohibit people from openly carrying a firearm.

Meanwhile, Sheriff John Szymanski said he also plans to challenge the new rule - arguing the county should make it more strict.

"We don't allow firearms in the park," said Mr. Szymanski, whose department oversees law enforcement of county parks. "It's a public facility, and if you walk around with a gun, you're going to intimidate a lot of people. Our position is we're not allowing it and we're going to ask for clarification on that point."

The wording of park rules, unchanged or made more strict, could set off a constitutional debate on gun rights in Lackawanna County, experts say. County solicitor John O'Brien said they are reviewing the language and looking to see how it can be updated.

"Our intention is not to make illegal anything that you can already do under state law," Mr. O'Brien said, indicating he thinks openly carrying a firearm in a park might be allowed under state law.

Mr. O'Brien couldn't say what the county meant by an "unlicensed firearm."

"What is an unlicensed firearm?" asked attorney Edward Bilik, who takes on gun law cases in the western part of the state. "I believe that they're pre-empting state statute with that, and it's going to be unconstitutional."

Tunkhannock attorney Jerry Grimaud, who takes on constitutional law cases, said the wording of the county park rules "would likely not pass constitutional muster." He added the county would have issues if it outright banned guns, as Mr. Szymanski plans to request.

"That's clearly unconstitutional," said Mr. Grimaud. "It's probably not been the subject of litigation, but if it does, I'm convinced it's not constitutional."

Pennsylvania has no license to carry a gun - there is a license to carry a concealed weapon - or state registration of gun owners, said Jack Lewis, a state police spokesman. State police only require sellers check the background of a person prior to the sale of a handgun.

Contact the writer: cschillinger@timesshamrock.com

I'm pretty sure they don't realize who they are up against. I believe they are about to be educated.

Pennsylvania has no license to carry a gun - there is a license to carry a concealed weapon - or state registration of gun owners, said Jack Lewis, a state police spokesman


Is this Lewis guy for real? No license to carry a gun, huh? Why does my little card say "License to Carry Firearms" then? I don't see anywhere on there anything about "License to Carry a Concealed Weapon."
With people like this speaking for the state police, well, I'm not even gonna go there ....

No unlicensed guns. That's hilarious. I guess they pass policy based on the knowledge of whoever is sitting in the room at the time.

...and no unlicensed weapons? What is the legal definition of weapon? My fists are weapons. And my pocket knife. And a stick. And according to jackie chan, groceries are weapons.

Who issues licenses for those?

Quote:"We don't allow firearms in the park," said Mr. Szymanski, whose department oversees law enforcement of county parks. "It's a public facility, and if you walk around with a gun, you're going to intimidate a lot of people. Our position is we're not allowing it and we're going to ask for clarification on that point."

ha! after 2 years of dancing around the subject, the Sheriff's finally committed himself, with this one statement. a couple of guys in this area, including me, have talked with the County Commissioners, the director of the parks department, the County Solicitor, and the Sheriff's department. every time i spoke with them, the Sherifff himself has refused to speak to me. i always spoke with Deputy Dom Manetti, his second-in-command. he's the one that told me that open carry was a "public nuisance".

looks like Sheriff Szymanski has finally made his stance clear. this leaves him open.

This sheriff should be fired immediately. He clearly doesn't know the law - or worse, doesn't care about the law. He can't claim ignorance, either, thanks to the 2009 MPOETC update.

It would be nice if someone in the area would hand deliver a printed copy of the 2009 MPOETC update with the carry sections highlighted....

(06-11-2010 11:07 AM)Paradigm Wrote: [ -> ]This sheriff should be fired immediately. He clearly doesn't know the law - or worse, doesn't care about the law. He can't claim ignorance, either, thanks to the 2009 MPOETC update.

It would be nice if someone in the area would hand deliver a printed copy of the 2009 MPOETC update with the carry sections highlighted....

his department has already received it, and people have followed up by calling, and trying to hammer the point home. he's old, and stubborn, and needs to go, already.

i don't know who's worse: the Scranton PD, who tries to work around the MPOETC, or the Sheriff's department, who ignores it.

Thanks for the update, Alex.

I hope someone in that district is preparing to run against this guy the next election...

(06-11-2010 03:32 PM)Paradigm Wrote: [ -> ]Thanks for the update, Alex.

I hope someone in that district is preparing to run against this guy the next election...

well, the last election already happened, so we're outta luck for the time being. the problem with Lackawanna politics, like anywhere else, is that no one cares. last election, 2 guys ran against him, and only one had enough money to get signs made. no one really cared enough, though, about the job, so he got voted in due to simple indifference. i did vote against him, myself. i managed to email, and then speak to his major opponent, and questioned him on his 2A stance; he, at least, seemed to understand preemption. he also wanted to expand the powers of the sheriff's office to include arrest powers and so forth.

(06-11-2010 04:18 PM)jahwarrior72 Wrote: [ -> ]i managed to email, and then speak to his major opponent, and questioned him on his 2A stance; he, at least, seemed to understand preemption. he also wanted to expand the powers of the sheriff's office to include arrest powers and so forth.

Expanding the powers of the sheriff's office to include arrest powers would require an act by the state legislature, which might well be an extremely difficult pill for them to swallow.

Well since the Sheriff feels he can make his own rules, he figures he can do what ever the hell he wants...

THIS MAN HAS TO BE EDUCATED ON LAWS......

And the attitude 'You can't sue me, I'm the sheriff and I have immunity' doesn't help much.