Share Thread:  
Springfield Township (DELCO) preemption violation
Came across this today while looking for something else. I sent an email via township website asking if they were aware of the state preemption prohibiting the township from regulating the lawful possession and/or carry of firearms within the township.

Quote:Ordinance #1466

Article 1 Firearms

48-1 Discharge, carrying, or possession of firearms restricted. No person shall, except in necessary defense of person or property, carry, possess, fire, or discharge any gun, firearm, bow and arrow, BB gun, air gun, spring gun, paintball gun, or any implement which impels with force a metal pellet or projectile of any kind, within the Township of Springfield; provided, however, nothing herein shall be interpreted to prohibit the firing or discharge of said implements at properly constructed and supervised ranges which have been approved by the Chief of Police of the Township of Springfield. Adopted this 11th day of September, 2007 by the Board of Commissioners of the Township of Springfield.

Wow. That sounds like New Jersey with a dash of Philadelphia. The older I get, the more it seems that the lawmakers are the lawless ones Sad
let us know how that goes
chrisjp, proud to be a member of since Feb 2013.
Much to my surprise I received the following email today ....

Now lets see if they really change the language.

Quote:-----Original Message-----
From: Lt. William Donohue []
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2013 10:59 AM
To: 'Springfield Township'
Subject: RE: Website Contact Form

Mr. XXXXXXXXX - Your e-mail was forwarded to me. The Township Solicitor has been made aware of the discrepancy. He will no doubt suggest appropriate language changes that bring the ordinance into compliance with Commonwealth regulations.

Lt. Donohue
10 days since the response by the Lt. the language has not changed. I forgot to send him a thanks for the response note so I sent this today:

Quote:Thank you for your response Lt. I would hope that those who are placed in charge of the law would also follow it. As of today, 8-24-13, the wording still reflects a violation of state law.

I was surprised when I got an email from the SPD Lt., I'm not so surprised the township website has not reflected any changes.
Well it seems the ordinance was changed in October 2013 but they never changed that "summary" page.

Summary Page:

Amended ordinance page:

So I sent a letter to the Lt. again:

Quote:Lt. Donohue,

My name is Bill xxxxxxxx, I wrote to the township back in August of 2013 about a state preemption violation on the township website that can be seen here:

The township forwarded my concern to you. It appears the township corrected the ordinance error in October of 2013 as can be seen on the township's codes page here:

First I’d like to thank you for your help in the matter, and second, ask that you have the township website person correct the summary of the ordinance on the page I first linked to in this note.

Thanks again,

Bill xxxxxxxx
Most township solicitors appear to be common sense guys and gals.
"As I lay rubber down the street I pray for traction I can keep, but if I spin and begin to slide, please dear God, protect my sweet ride."

Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Dauphin County Preemption Correction Howard Bullock 1 1,037 04-12-2013, 11:16 PM
Last Post: twency
  Warwick Township PA pre emption violation? The Unknown87 10 1,887 01-18-2013, 01:47 PM
Last Post: bac0nfat
  Sending a Message to Springfield Mall RE: Code of Conduct ViperGTS19801 14 2,102 01-04-2013, 02:51 PM
Last Post: AndrewG23

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

Software by MyBB, © 2002-2015 MyBB Group.
Template by Modogodo Design.