LTCF: Carrying in/on School Zone; PSP Answer

[LittleRedToyota]

Originally Posted by SigForLife

I'll write them and AG Corbett and let everyone know the result. Since everyone believes it is negative, then there is nothing to lose.

that is a good idea. thanks for doing it, and please do let us know what he says.

[LittleRedToyota]

Originally Posted by Delco Sig

Anyone want to poke holes in my understanding?

if you read the actual text of the GFSZ act (as opposed to the PSPs summation of it), you will find that the GFSZ act does not *positively* assert that you can carry on school grounds if you have an LTCF.

all it actually does is say that if you have an LTCF, you are exempted from the GFSZ act in PA. this is a *negative* statement regarding the effect of the GFSZ act on you...not a general positive statement about what you can legally do.

thus, the state law is not in conflict with this portion of the Federal GFSZ act because the state law is not saying "you are not exempt from the Federal GFSZ act". rather it completely ignores the GFSZ act and makes it illegal to carry in a school in and of itself.

and, again, since the Federal GFSZ act doesn't say "it is legal for you to carry in a school if you have an LTCF" but, rather, just "it is not illegal under the Federal GFSZ act for you to carry in a school if you have an LTCF", a state law making it illegal to carry in a school even with an LTCF is in no way in conflict with the federal GFSZ act.

you have to think about the difference between positively asserting that something is legal for a particular person vs. negatively asserting that a particular law does not apply to a particular person. the latter (which is what the GFSZ act does) does not preclude other laws from making the action illegal for that particular person.

[LittleRedToyota]

Originally Posted by 5711-Marine

Found this posted by Statowski on the Open Carry website:

thanks for posting that. i had actually been looking around for that, but couldn't find it.

[LittleRedToyota]

btw, some of the wording in the bolden case shows why it might be dangerous to rely on the other lawful purpose exception defense in court...and also demonstrates why our courts are so broken...

We note, however, that Bolden’s argument ignores that the exception to Section 912 only allows the possession of a firearm “in conjunction with a lawful supervised school activity or course” (meaning, for example, a supervised guns awareness program or perhaps a firearm safety course) or for “[an]other lawful purpose” (meaning, for example, that an investigator, or a security guard, or other person who as part of his or her duties carries a firearm will not be charged with a crime under this section even if he or she is possessing a weapon on school grounds).

notice how the court redefined "other" to mean "another" without even batting an eyelash.

scary stuff.

[shefearsnothing]

scary stuff.

When I was in school we didn't have to worry about guns in schools....needing them or being afraid someone was going to bring one in and shoot the place up...talk about scary stuff. A HUGE advantage to pulling kids out the brick and mortar schools.....

[gnbrotz]

Good luck getting an opinion from the AG. My opinion:

§912. Possession of Weapon on School Property.

(a) Definition.—Notwithstanding the definition of “weapon” in section 907 (relating to possessing instruments of crime), “weapon” for purposes of this section shall include but not be limited to any knife, cutting instrument, cutting tool, nun-chuck stick, firearm, shotgun, rifle and any other tool, instrument or implement capable of inflicting serious bodily injury.

(b) Offense defined.—A person commits a misdemeanor of the first degree if he possesses a weapon in the buildings of, on the grounds of, or in any conveyance providing transportation to or from any elementary or secondary publicly-funded educational institution, any elementary or secondary private school licensed by the Department of Education or any elementary or secondary parochial school.

(c) Defense—It shall be a defense that the weapon is possessed and used in conjunction with a lawful supervised school activity or course or is possessed for other lawful purpose.

I think this first paragraph is very important to keep in mind as you weigh the meaning of the third. This statute applies to far more than just firearms. It includes pocket knives, utility knives, chainsaws and even screwdrivers. All of these are capable of inflicting "serious bodily injury", and all are treated equally under this section.

If it's always illegal to possess a firearm on school property, then it's always illegal to possess a screwdriver there too. If it's legal to possess a chainsaw to clean up the tree that went down in the storm, or a screwdriver to adjust the hinge on that door that needs fixed, then why is it such a leap to understand that it's legal to possess your firearm for self defense?! These are all "lawful purposes".

[GunLawyer001]

Originally Posted by 5711-Marine

Found this posted by Statowski on the Open Carry website:

.....
Legal staff further indicated that in Commonwealth v. Heidler, the Pennsylvania Superior Court specifically refused to answer the question of whether an individual with a license to carry a firearm possessed such firearm for a lawful purpose on school grounds. 741 A.2d 213, 217, fn 8 (1999), app. denied 758 A.2d 660 (Pa. 2000). In Bolden v. Chartiers Valley School District, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania noted that, "(w)e need not address Bolden's argument that because his gun was registered his conduct falls within the exception to Section 912 which states that no crime is committed if Bolden possessed the gun with a lawful purpose. We note, however, that Bolden's argument ignores that the exception to Section 912 only allows possession of a firearm...for '[an] other lawful purpose' (meaning, for example, than an investigator, or a security guard, or other person who as part of his or her duties carries a firearm will not be charged with a crime...)." 869 A.2d 1 134. 1139. fn 7 (2005).
.....

If the legislature had intended to limit lawful carry to "vocational" carry, they certainly could have said so.

The test should be simple; if you carry a gun, it's either "lawful" or "unlawful". If the state wants' to establish that you don't fall within the "lawful purpose" exception, they have to prove that you had an "unlawful" purpose, without bootstrapping it out of the school statute itself. For example, unlicensed concealed carry is unlawful. Carrying a firearm with the intent to commit a murder or assault is unlawful. Carrying a gun into a courthouse without intending to check it in is unlawful. But peaceful, licensed carry is lawful, and clearly falls within the exception, unless you're a judge with a "progressive" political agenda that trumps your sworn oath of office.

[TaePo]

The other part of the interpretation from "Other lawful purpose" to "[an] other..." is that there is a conjunctive OR statement. If their intepretation were to be valid (linguistically and logically), I believe that at least the last statement should be AND.

"It will be a defense if ....or...or...AND for other lawful purpose."

But it actually is written as"

"It will be a defense if....or...or...OR for other lawful purpose."

[knight0334]

Originally Posted by GunLawyer001

If the legislature had intended to limit lawful carry to "vocational" carry, they certainly could have said so.

The test should be simple; if you carry a gun, it's either "lawful" or "unlawful". If the state wants' to establish that you don't fall within the "lawful purpose" exception, they have to prove that you had an "unlawful" purpose, without bootstrapping it out of the school statute itself. For example, unlicensed concealed carry is unlawful. Carrying a firearm with the intent to commit a murder or assault is unlawful. Carrying a gun into a courthouse without intending to check it in is unlawful. But peaceful, licensed carry is lawful, and clearly falls within the exception, unless you're a judge with a "progressive" political agenda that trumps your sworn oath of office.

Thats the problem though. There are plenty of those judges in office. And plenty of bleeding hearts afraid of lawful carrying, and over zealous officers/departments that will demand or push something through a trial.

Sadly, until we get coded definition or a PA Supreme Court ruling, the possibility of a conviction exists. Unless someone wants to make case law - it'd be generally wiser to avoid school grounds. ...but hey, thats just my opinion. I dont have the $$$$ to hire a lawyer even to fight a parking ticket - let alone a higher offense.

I will however donate my last $87 I have in my savings account to someone who'll challenge the law in a high court.

[headcase]

I can tell you, in no uncertain terms, that the official stance on this subject is that you are allowed to carry on school property concealed, with a LTCF. If you get caught with a firearm in a school building, you will be arrested and the test case will ensue. If you carry openly on school property, and a complaint is made, you will, at best, be asked to cover it, and at worst be arrested and the test case shall ensue.

I post this because I would hate to see someone here think that they know the statute and what it means, only to find out that the reality is different. I know very well what the statute says, and how it should be interpreted if it came down to standing before a judge, but I also know very well what the state and local position is. I do not believe they want this issue brought before a court, but there are limits to what they are willing to allow to keep it out, and they have defined those limits. Do they mesh with the wording of the statute? Not even close in my opinion. Do they care? Not even close to it. It appears to me, from some very in depth discussions on this topic, that the government and gun owners both, do not want to see this statute tested in court. What is likely to happen is that the subject of the charge would likely prevail due to the defense clause, but the majority of people, including a great deal of gun owners from what I have gathered, would be so appalled at the thought that people could legally carry in a school(read that to say around, GULP, defenseless children), that the law would be changed, making the legislature look stupid, and gun owners would be vilified yet again.

Test the AG waters. I too would be very interested to see Mr. Corbett's view on the subject.