West Mifflin Council OKs metal detect...

West Mifflin Council OKs metal detectors at its chambers

There are 61 comments on the Pittsburgh Tribune story from Nov 18, 2008, titled West Mifflin Council OKs metal detectors at its chambers. In it, Pittsburgh Tribune reports that:

West Mifflin Council voted unanimously Tuesday night to install a metal detector at the entrance to its second-floor chambers at the borough building.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Pittsburgh Tribune.

First Prev
of 4
Next Last
taxpayer

West Mifflin, PA

#1 Nov 19, 2008
well just another way to spend other peoples money. Lets see Bill Welsh said he did want a Columbine to happen or in this day and age with people loosing their homes they might take it out on council....geeze what drama
crooked as a snake

West Mifflin, PA

#2 Dec 3, 2008
How about lie detectors for the superior 7 ?
John

Pittsburgh, PA

#3 Dec 4, 2008
I agree - lie detectors are also needed for the council brain trust.

The region is in such decline. Century III Mall is going down. They need to re-focus before its too late.
better late than ever

West Mifflin, PA

#4 Dec 4, 2008
Why does borough council members get paid and the school board members don't?? Can this money going for the council be omitted? I mean they are there for the best interest of the borough,I mean I'm talking about another $4000.00 @ year for each council member,that's $28,000.00 @ year !! I think it should be put on the ballot for the next election. Let the people vote on it !!
Mike Stollenwerk

Alexandria, VA

#5 Dec 13, 2008
How weird - they can't ban gun carry at city hall under Section 6120 of the firearms act, and like most states no permit is even needed to open carry a handgun in Pennsylvania.
concerned person

West Mifflin, PA

#6 Dec 13, 2008
Mike Stollenwerk wrote:
How weird - they can't ban gun carry at city hall under Section 6120 of the firearms act, and like most states no permit is even needed to open carry a handgun in Pennsylvania.
So are you saying that under 6120 they can't ban a citizen from having a gun on them at a meeting and this action is a violation of the act??? Because this group of members think they are permitted to enact any rules they wish

Since: Nov 08

Mountain Top

#7 Dec 14, 2008
concerned person wrote:
<quoted text>
So are you saying that under 6120 they can't ban a citizen from having a gun on them at a meeting ....
That is exactly what Mr. Stollenwerk is saying. And he is 100% correct.

State law is well established and this proposal to ban firearms carry ar meetings is flat out illegal. The borough is explicitly prohibited from regulating the carrying of firearms in ANY way per 18Pa.C.S.6120

18Pa.C.S.6120 states in part:
****quote****
6120. Limitation on the regulation of firearms and ammunition.

1. General rule.-- No county, municipality or township may in any manner regulate the lawful ownership, possession, transfer or transportation of firearms, ammunition or ammunition components when carried or transported for purposes not prohibited by the laws of this Commonwealth.
**** end quote****
Source: http://paopencarry.org/uniform-firearms-act#6 ...

Now, 6120 is very important. In Pa. we have a RIGHT to carry firearms. 6120 prevents localities from regulating or restricting that RIGHT. State law is THE law in regards to firearms carry. If it is not prohibited by Pa. Title 18 you are good to go.

The borough flat out can not ban firearms carry especially on public property!

This measure will fail miserably because it is illegal, not to mention non nonsensical.

Nice job solicitor Adams. You should be disbarred if you approved this measure.

Since: Nov 08

Mountain Top

#8 Dec 14, 2008
Further, the preemption statute above is NOT excepted or otherwise overruled by home rule charter...
In 1996 the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held in Ortiz v. Commonwealth that there are no implied home rule exceptions to 18 Pa.c.S Section 6120 given that the Pennsylvania Constitution commands that the right to bear arms "shall not be questioned." Ortiz v. Commonwealth, 681 A.2d 152 (1996), available at http://paopencarry.org/Ortiz-v-Commonwealth .

The unlawful proposal to ban gun carry at the West Mifflin Municipal Building will attract the attention of gun owners across Pennsylvania and any such policy will be challenged. Any harassment or unlawful arrest of persons attempting to enter the West Mifflin Municipal Building while lawfully and peaceably carrying guns will most likely be met with swift legal action as is now ongoing in many states, Some examples here in Pa include federal 1983 civil actions against Dickson City, Allentown, and Lebanon. Such suits will be costly to West Mifflin taxpayers

If West Mifflin borough has made an incredibly dumb "boo-boo" by shining a brilliantly bright light on themselves by challenging gun owners and carriers. One in twenty Pennsylvanians has a license to carry a firearm and the ratio is even higher for Allegheny county. We are law abiding folks that expect the borough to be so as well.
NRV

Harrisburg, PA

#9 Dec 14, 2008
concerned person wrote:
<quoted text>
So are you saying that under 6120 they can't ban a citizen from having a gun on them at a meeting and this action is a violation of the act??? Because this group of members think they are permitted to enact any rules they wish
That is what it means. These people just threw away several thousand dollars on something they can not use. Plus the city solicitor needs to be fired for not doing his job.
Dustin

Riverview, FL

#10 Dec 14, 2008
I'm sure they can use it... Set it up in the parking lot to prove that cars are made of metal as they pass by....
Armed Voter

Franklin, PA

#11 Dec 14, 2008
Asking for protection from the public is the first stage of a dictatorship.

The more seperation between the people and government, the worse for all.

People need to redress their government without interference and in an easy manner.

Government must listen to the citizens.

Once the government servants are seperable from the people, they no longer fear the people and can pass any laws they want. The people cannot get to their leaders and tell them what they want or need or what their grievances are.

It is lose-lose as far as a free America is concerned.

Freedom is not easy nor is it 'safe'. Each of us is responsible for their own freedom and defense.

If they do not feel safe, they should carry also.
A Struggling Homeowner

Ambler, PA

#12 Dec 14, 2008
How many other ill advised purchases have they made, and how much has it cost the taxpayers at this point?

Why do they retain a solicitor if the solicitor doesn't catch that this is something that the Council cannot do? Isn't that the primary function of the job?

This topic has been highlighted in Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and other smaller towns across PA. This is NOT the first time preemption laws have come up, even as recently as the past MONTH! So as has been told to so many people before- "Ignornace of the law is not an excuse".

The amount of money the council spends haphazardly needs to be recovered. I suggest that Council members be held accountable for their action like everyone else. If they cannot recover the loss of money on the detector by returning it, or selling it, their salaries need to be garnished to recover this loss.

The people want change. We want goverment to have the SAME FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY that the citizen does or WE WILL REPLACE YOU.

I'm disgusted. That money could have gone to a program to benefit the community, not just the members of the Council.
Retired Master Sergeant

Windber, PA

#13 Dec 14, 2008
February of this year. Kirkwood, Missouri. Firearms prohibited in council chambers. Police officer stationed outside and inside.

Local nutjob, highly upset with the municipal council, takes out his frustrations. Kills the cop outside, goes in and kills the cop inside (and takes his gun). Proceeds to shoot up council chambers.

Of course, since they prohibited the carrying of firearms by everyone except the police (permissable in Missouri, unfortunately), everyone inside was totally defenseless.

Body count? Five dead, two wounded. The police eventually showed up and finished off the nutjob.

Is there a lesson here for West Mifflin?
TwoSixty

Philadelphia, PA

#14 Dec 14, 2008
better late than ever wrote:
Why does borough council members get paid and the school board members don't??
Simple, the borough gets to choose how much they think they can get away with paying themselves, school teachers don't get that luxury.
cry me a river

West Mifflin, PA

#15 Dec 14, 2008
some just want the sense of power usually the weak minded needing a ego boost and skimming money in the progress.. a politician's dreams and desires. "What's for me?" instead of "What's for the people"
cry me a river

West Mifflin, PA

#16 Dec 14, 2008
wouldnt it make more sense to put the metal detector in the entrance of the building??? I mean if it's on the 2nd floor a mad man can spray bullets into the room without even going through the detector. If someone's in the building already with a gun,they are at an advantage. not the cops or the detector.
cry me a river

West Mifflin, PA

#17 Dec 14, 2008
TwoSixty wrote:
<quoted text>
Simple, the borough gets to choose how much they think they can get away with paying themselves, school teachers don't get that luxury.
So next election ask the "candidates" if they will work with and for the community for NO pay..
Hey !! I can use the extra $4000.00 @ year with say 2 meetings a month as a council member gets paid. Not bad money for let's say a total of 6 hours a month????

Since: Nov 08

Mountain Top

#18 Dec 15, 2008
So what's the deal Mr. Bednar? It's now 1:30PM on Monday. You should have had plenty of time to have your solicitor (Adams) verify you're colossal boo-boo on this...
drive by in west mifflin

West Mifflin, PA

#19 Dec 15, 2008
I guess Bednar and Adams are out on the town blowing tax payers money away. That's nothing new here in West Mifflin. But then again they might be on their 3 hour lunch break,and of course that time is charged to the borough.

Since: Nov 08

Mountain Top

#20 Dec 15, 2008
Yeah, gun owners are mobilizing to show up at he next meeting to address this outrageous boo-boo.

With all the controversy surrounding the borough council
http://www.topix.com/city/west-mifflin-pa/200...
The last thing you would think these council members would want is all the media attention that will follow gun owners descending on council meeting. Seems like they should make haste in reversing this unlawful resolution.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 4
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Port Royal Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Let's reminisce! (Apr '10) 15 hr Greg 349
News 4 suspected illegal aliens convicted of illegal... Dec 9 tronic 2
Looking for Cocker Spaniel Stud to breed with m... (Apr '09) Dec 2 Mairy1103 81
News U.S. Middle District court indicts 4 illegal al... Nov 24 tomin cali 1
Please help bring Shane home Oct '17 Jessica 1
News Pennsylvania joins lawsuit over DACA decision Oct '17 Bamze 2
News From Mexico to Swarthmore, a dream now in danger Sep '17 Wildchild 2

Port Royal Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Port Royal Mortgages