{"id":11590,"date":"2014-04-09T12:45:19","date_gmt":"2014-04-09T16:45:19","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/kennetttimes.com\/?p=11590"},"modified":"2014-04-09T11:57:39","modified_gmt":"2014-04-09T15:57:39","slug":"kennett-amends-firearm-ordinance-after-hearing","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/kennetttimes.com\/?p=11590","title":{"rendered":"Kennett discusses changes to gun ordinance"},"content":{"rendered":"

Two concerns emerge: freedom to shoot vs. protection from shooters<\/i><\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

By Rick Marts, <\/b>Staff Writer, Kennett Times<\/i><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\"KennStevens\"<\/a>

Scudder Stevens, chairman of Kennett Township Board of Supervisors, and David Sander, township solicitor, listen intently to residents\u2019 questions and concerns about recent amendments to the township\u2019s Firearm Discharge Ordinance. Another public meeting will occur in May<\/p><\/div>\n

KENNETT \u2014 At a special meeting on Monday, the Township Board of Supervisors unveiled its amendments to ordinance no. 212, which codifies its firearm usage regulation enacted in September 2103. The BOS believes changes are necessary for its new law to be enforceable after Magisterial District Judge Daniel J. Maisano dismissed two cases brought under the law on March 10, 2014. (To find links to the current and proposed Firearm Discharge Ordinance, visit www.kennett.pa.us<\/a>)<\/p>\n

David Sander, the township\u2019s solicitor, led the meeting. He said, \u201cTo revise the ordinance so that it can be enforced and the health, safety, and welfare of our residents protected, we need to answer four questions: What authority does the township have? What is a firearm? What is wrong with the current law? What is our best enforcement strategy?\u201d \u00a0<\/p>\n

Under the question of authority, Sander explained that Pennsylvania\u2019s Uniform Firearms Act states that no township may regulate the lawful ownership, possession, transfer (buy or sell) or transportation of firearms. Sander said, \u201cAccordingly, our ordinance does not mention these areas.\u201d<\/p>\n

Significantly, however, he also said, \u201cThe word \u2018use\u2019 does not appear on the list of areas that are preempted by state law. Therefore, I have advised the BOS that it has the authority to create an ordinance that governs the use, i.e., discharge, of firearms in the township.\u201d<\/p>\n

As far as what is a firearm, instead of defining the weapon by its physical attributes, as is done under the Pennsylvania Uniform Firearms Act, Sander said he believes a more general definition is needed; therefore, the proposed definition in the law is now \u201cany weapon which is designed to expel a projectile by explosive, or the frame or receiver that is use for projecting the bullet.\u201d<\/p>\n

How Sander advised the BOS to amend the current ordinance\u2019s restrictions for using firearms required much explanation and discussion.<\/p>\n

In part, Sander explained that, to gain credibility for the amendments and the new ordinance, he recommended referring to long-established sources. He said, \u201cWe are adopting language from Pennsylvania\u2019s General Rules of Hunting in defining our 150-yard \u2018no-discharge zone\u2019 under Section 124-4.(A). And because we found no source for restricting use within 100 yards of a property line, we are deleting that language.\u201d<\/p>\n

At the meeting, one of the most controversial amendments to the new law was its requirement that \u201cno discharge of a firearm could occur except with a backstop, baffle, horizontal bullet catcher or other appropriate safeguard \u2026as set forth\u2026in the National Rifle Association\u2019s Range Source Book.\u201d<\/p>\n

Sander explained that the original language used the word \u201cadequate\u201d to describe the mandated backstop. But this was too vague. The new language from the NRA, therefore, removes the subjectivity and improves the law\u2019s clarity.<\/p>\n

Finally, to address the fourth question of how to enforce this new ordinance, Sander said the law would be amended to provide for civil enforcement procedures rather than criminal penalties.<\/p>\n

The impact of this change is significant. If the charges under the law, as amended\u2014civil procedures\u2014are again dismissed, the township can appeal the ruling, which it cannot do if the charges are brought under criminal procedures, as occurred with Judge Maisano\u2019s ruling in March.<\/p>\n

In closing his presentation, Sander told the attending residents, \u201cThis amended ordinance has not been fully reviewed or advertised and, therefore, no vote or action will be taken tonight. We are here to discuss the proposed changes so that we can return to the drawing board and continue improving this law for the good of the township.\u201d<\/p>\n

Chairman Scudder Stevens then opened the meeting for questions and discussion.<\/p>\n

\u2022 A resident asked whether an NRA-approved backstop was needed for deer hunting. Solicitor Sander said no, this ordinance is subordinate to Pennsylvania\u2019s General Rules of Hunting, so that the restrictions under this law pertain to recreational firearm discharge, not hunting.<\/p>\n

\u201cHowever,\u201d Sander continued, \u201ceven if no provision in state law makes a specific gun use illegal, if it is illegal under the new ordinance, you are subject to being cited.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u2022 Do other townships regulate the use of firearms? Sander said yes, East Bradford Township has adopted an extensive ordinance with many provisions similar to Kennett\u2019s.<\/p>\n

\u2022 Resident Mike Gutman asked, \u201cWhat\u2019s the downside of making the law civil rather than criminal? Sander said, \u201cThe penalties are a little weaker in that the fine is less and can be paid in lieu of jail.\u201d Stevens added, however, that each fine is additive and ultimately could become substantial.<\/p>\n

\u2022 A resident asked whether Judge Maisano would like this amended law. Sander said, \u201cWe don\u2019t know, but I believe that with our current amendment, if he dismisses another case on the basis of the law being unconstitutional, we can appeal the decision, which we could not do for a criminal violation.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u2022 A resident asked why all the attention is being focused at this time on firearm use. He questioned whether this was a noise abatement issue rather than a safety issue? Several residents rose to attest to their perception that a real safety issue was at stake here. They said that they feared for their children\u2019s safety whenever the sound of gun fire rang out in the woods nearby. Chairman Stevens added that increasing numbers of complaints about safety have arisen, which prompted the BOS to take up the issue of a new gun ordinance.<\/p>\n

\u2022 Another resident asked, \u201cIf we think a gun user is behaving in an unsafe or threatening manner and perhaps violating the criminal code, what do we do?\u201d Sander said, \u201cIn the absence of other credible evidence, a police officer must observe the violation. Therefore, when you observe or hear what you believe is unlawful activity, call the police.\u201d<\/p>\n

Stevens said that another meeting of this kind will reconvene again in May.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Two concerns emerge: freedom to shoot vs. protection from shooters By Rick Marts, Staff Writer, Kennett Times KENNETT \u2014 At a special meeting on Monday, the Township Board of Supervisors unveiled its amendments to ordinance no. 212, which codifies its firearm usage regulation enacted in September 2103. The BOS believes changes are necessary for its […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":11589,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,4],"tags":[4275,36,4398],"class_list":["post-11590","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-news","category-featured","tag-gun-ordinance","tag-kennett-township","tag-public-hearing"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/kennetttimes.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11590","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/kennetttimes.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/kennetttimes.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kennetttimes.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kennetttimes.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=11590"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/kennetttimes.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11590\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kennetttimes.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/11589"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/kennetttimes.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=11590"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kennetttimes.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=11590"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kennetttimes.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=11590"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}