LTCF: Carrying in/on School Zone; PSP Answer

[GunLawyer001]

Originally Posted by mjf

I think our "Possession of Weapon on School Property" statute, in my opinion, is totally weird. I'm not sure why it only lists a defense and not any exceptions... It seems elsewhere in the UFA, where there's a prohibition against firearms, there's generally an exception for law enforcement, etc, like courthouses for example.

If the law is stated not to apply, for example, to cops, then cops can't be arrested unless the Commonwealth can prove that he's not a cop. If it's worded to provide an affirmative defense, then the defendant has the burden of proving that the defense applies. If you're arrested for carrying without a license, the Commonwealth has to show that you are not listed as having been issued a license in your county. If you're arrested for underage drinking, they have to show that you are underage. But if you're arrested for having a machinegun, then you have the burden of producing your stamped Form 4 as a defense, the Commonwealth doesn't have to prove the absence of compliance to prevail under Section 908.

A lot of legal wording has a point that only becomes apparent in court.

[Delco Sig]

Originally Posted by mjf

I'm not sure the Attorney General's opinion means much of anything with regard to this law. A DA could still prosecute you and a court could still convict you of the crime. In time I'd bet someone, who plans on actually taking a real stand for their rights, will get pounced for the crime and probably win.

Hmph ... it would I appear I've confused Attorney General and the District Attorney. Quite the oversight on my part. Bollocks.

[mjf]

Originally Posted by GunLawyer001

If the law is stated not to apply, for example, to cops, then cops can't be arrested unless the Commonwealth can prove that he's not a cop. If it's worded to provide an affirmative defense, then the defendant has the burden of proving that the defense applies. If you're arrested for carrying without a license, the Commonwealth has to show that you are not listed as having been issued a license in your county. If you're arrested for underage drinking, they have to show that you are underage. But if you're arrested for having a machinegun, then you have the burden of producing your stamped Form 4 as a defense, the Commonwealth doesn't have to prove the absence of compliance to prevail under Section 908.

A lot of legal wording has a point that only becomes apparent in court.

So, if you could prove you're covered by "possessed for other lawful purpose" to the officer then you shouldn't be arrested, or would you probably be arrested and charged? I'd suspect most police harassing about this would assume "lawful purpose" means for the purpose of law enforcement?

[GunLawyer001]

Originally Posted by mjf

So, if you could prove you're covered by "possessed for other lawful purpose" to the officer then you shouldn't be arrested, or would you probably be arrested and charged? I'd suspect most police harassing about this would assume "lawful purpose" means for the purposed of law enforcement?

An affirmative defense is not relevant to the prima facie case needed for a misdemeanor prosecution to proceed, so in theory, the DA could ignore your overwhelming evidence and let the court sort it out.

In practice, the DA is not interested in wasting his time any more than you are, so if your evidence would defeat his prosecution, you shouldn't be prosecuted.

Same for cops, they could arrest every person with a machinegun and make you present your defense in court, but in practice they will usually look at your Form 4 as though they could spot a forgery, and let you go. On a good day, you could offer to let them put a few mags through the gun.

As for the "other lawful purpose", it's not at all clear what that means, so it wouldn't be outrageous for a cop to see your LTCF and arrest you anyway. Even where the facts are clear, the law is not, so if the law is ambiguous then we can't demand that every beat cop act as an appellate judge and interpret legal issues of first impression.

[pex]

Originally Posted by GunLawyer001

Even where the facts are clear, the law is not, so if the law is ambiguous then we can't demand that every beat cop act as an appellate judge and interpret legal issues of first impression.

Even when the supreme laws of the land say that the RKBA shall not be infringed and shall not be questioned (or in any other clear cases of constitutional supremacy)? We've decided that two sentences that represent law that subordinates all other can't be guiding enough that a beat cop has to push the issue to the courts?

[BCI Instructor]

Originally Posted by Delco Sig

If the Attorney General, the body responsible for charging and prosecuting violations of the law, won't clarify the law for responsible citizens, how can we be expected to follow it?

Oh, right. They interpret vaguely worded laws in the moment to best suit their case.

DelcoSig - great observation, may I offer a comment Sir?

In some states, the AG's office is prohibited by policy or in some cases (example: Virginia) precluded by _statute_ from offering individual intrepretation or clarification. They are often limited to doing so exclusively for the Executive Branch of government in their state (primarily, the Governor).

Intrepretation is often left to the courts who thereby establish definitions via case law.

Not sure if in PA this is by policy or statute, my current location while traveling offers only a slooooowww dial up connection so research is difficult.

... hope this helps ...