READ FIRST: Where you CAN and CANNOT Carry weapons in the State of Pennsylvania

[LittleRedToyota]

Originally Posted by lildobe

Yeah, I stand corrected. I was under the impression that the FGFSZ act exempted ANYONE with a CCW/LTCF, not just residents.

However, what of a non-resident with a PA-LTCF?

a non-resident with a *PA* LTCF is fine.

the GFSZ act doesn't distinguish between residents and non-residents. it only requires that the license be issued by the state in which the school is located.

[lildobe]

Originally Posted by LittleRedToyota

a non-resident with a *PA* LTCF is fine.

the GFSZ act doesn't distinguish between residents and non-residents. it only requires that the license be issued by the state in which the school is located.

That's what I thought. Thanks for helping me clear up that confusion!

[LittleRedToyota]

Originally Posted by Machinist

Is there some code that defines "cased"?

i can't find a legal defintion that is binding in PA at the moment.

however, i remember asking the same question as you a long time ago, and a lawyer opined that a holster does not count as a case.

for what it's worth--which is not much since it is a different state--this is the legal defintion of case in illinois:

from: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...031888&invol=3

Case is defined in the Wildlife Code, Chapter 520, 'case means a container specifically designed for the purpose of housing a gun or bow and arrow device which completely encloses such gun or bow and arrow device by being zipped, snapped, buckled, tied or otherwise fashioned with no portion of the gun or bow and arrow device exposed.' 91st Ill. Gen. Assem., House Proceedings, April 10, 2000, 50-51 (statements of Representative Cook).

i'm sure a definition for case in PA could be dug up...but i'm not going to spend more time on it now. but, i am about certain it will be similar to the defintion from illinois above.

[Pa. Patriot]

Originally Posted by BobbySomers

So, Being that I live within 1000 feet from a school a Florida Non-Resident permit would do me no good. I guess I should just apply for my PA LTCF and hope for the best because I definately cannot afford to appeal a denial.
Living in Philly REALLY SUCKS!!!

Private property is exempted.


"(i) on private property not part of school grounds;"

[Pennywise]

Originally Posted by Pa. Patriot

Private property is exempted.


"(i) on private property not part of school grounds;"

Yeah, I understand that part. It just sucks because I am pretty sure Philly PD is going to deny me.
I really need to move.
Thanks for the clarification.

[Machinist]

Originally Posted by LittleRedToyota

i can't find a legal defintion that is binding in PA at the moment.

however, i remember asking the same question as you a long time ago, and a lawyer opined that a holster does not count as a case.

for what it's worth--which is not much since it is a different state--this is the legal defintion of case in illinois:

from: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...031888&invol=3



i'm sure a definition for case in PA could be dug up...but i'm not going to spend more time on it now. but, i am about certain it will be similar to the defintion from illinois above.

I would like that definition. A Kel-tec handgun with the Kel-tec supplied zippered "case" could be worn on a belt with that definition.

Thanks for your time!

[knight0334]

Originally Posted by headcase

These two things conflict with each other.


There has been argument that the federal law does not allow for out of state permits, but I believe that the logical argument that:

a.) If the state recognizes the other states permit, it has, in fact and deed, accepted the legality of that permit and considers you licensed in it's boundries.

b.) To legally interpret the federal law as not allowing reciprical licensing to be valid steps all over the rights of the state to enter into valid legal agreements

C.) Interpreting the federal law as not allowing for reciprical validity would effectively make a recripricity agreement useless, in that there is almost no possible way to traverse a state without passing within 1000 feet of a school.

clearly determins how the GFSZA has to be read, and enforced. Throwing opinions on this topic into this thread as facts, is not helpful to new readers............

I know some people dont like reading that your license is no good in some places, but the simple fact is out of state permits and licenses are no protection from the federal law. In the last 10-13 years this subject has be hashed over almost as much as post office carry and 9mm vs 45acp on public forums. LOL

Even the ATF, the branch that enforces the GFSZA, has publicly stated that you need a license from the state in which the school is located. It even says it in plain, untwisted wording in the law.

There are a few exceptions, one of which is being on private property, or unloaded to/from certain places and it being in a container.. But carrying on public properties like sidewalks and roads - you absolutely must have a license from the state in which the school is located.

A person with a PA LTCF would be protected from the federal law within 1KFT. But someone carrying in PA with a FL license is not protected.


below is the gun free school zone section of US Title 18, Ch44, 922

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/922.html

(2)
(A) It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.
(B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the possession of a firearm—
(i) on private property not part of school grounds;
(ii) if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located or a political subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or political subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license; (iii) that is—
(I) not loaded; and
(II) in a locked container, or a locked firearms rack that is on a motor vehicle;
(iv) by an individual for use in a program approved by a school in the school zone;
(v) by an individual in accordance with a contract entered into between a school in the school zone and the individual or an employer of the individual;
(vi) by a law enforcement officer acting in his or her official capacity; or
(vii) that is unloaded and is possessed by an individual while traversing school premises for the purpose of gaining access to public or private lands open to hunting, if the entry on school premises is authorized by school authorities.
(3)
(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), it shall be unlawful for any person, knowingly or with reckless disregard for the safety of another, to discharge or attempt to discharge a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the person knows is a school zone.
(B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the discharge of a firearm—
(i) on private property not part of school grounds;
(ii) as part of a program approved by a school in the school zone, by an individual who is participating in the program;
(iii) by an individual in accordance with a contract entered into between a school in a school zone and the individual or an employer of the individual; or
(iv) by a law enforcement officer acting in his or her official capacity.
(4) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as preempting or preventing a State or local government from enacting a statute establishing gun free school zones as provided in this subsection.

[headcase]

I'll say it again, the wording does not say issued, which is how it is constantly being referenced, it says licensed. If the state has a recipricity agreement, it has, in fact and deed, licensed you to carry in their state. The ATF can say whatever they like, but I have not seen one case of them prosecuting anyone under the GFSZA, especially for just being in the zone with a valid license that is recognized by the state they are in. I don't believe it will happen because it is unwinnable. Just like you won't see any prosecutions in Pa. under the no guns in school statute, unless there are other violations. The GFSZA has already been struck down once, and it is a document that has no teeth, IMHO, if you are following the law otherwise.

It is not possible to enforce this asstard law without rewriting everything else relating to the state and it's own firearm laws, so it ain't going to happen.

[knight0334]

Originally Posted by headcase

I'll say it again, the wording does not say issued, which is how it is constantly being referenced, it says licensed. If the state has a recipricity agreement, it has, in fact and deed, licensed you to carry in their state. The ATF can say whatever they like, but I have not seen one case of them prosecuting anyone under the GFSZA, especially for just being in the zone with a valid license that is recognized by the state they are in. I don't believe it will happen because it is unwinnable. Just like you won't see any prosecutions in Pa. under the no guns in school statute, unless there are other violations. The GFSZA has already been struck down once, and it is a document that has no teeth, IMHO, if you are following the law otherwise.

It is not possible to enforce this asstard law without rewriting everthing else relating to the state and it's own firearm laws, so it ain't going to happen.

You are licensed by the state that issues your license/permit. In a reciprocal situation the state is honoring a license and extending its rights and priviledges, you are not licensed by it.

Florida(insert state) didn't license me with my PA LTCF, same with any other reciprocal states - they just honorsmy PA LTCF as one of their own CFP/CWP/CFL/CCWL. Which still doesn't get by the legal wording of federal law.

The good news is - the GFSZA is rarely if ever enforced. I think someone did the research somewhere else - maybe a handful of cases since the law was brought back.

[headcase]

Originally Posted by knight0334

You are licensed by the state that issues your license/permit. In a reciprocal situation the state is honoring a license and extending its rights and priviledges, you are not licensed by it.

Florida(insert state) didn't license me with my PA LTCF, same with any other reciprocal states - they just honorsmy PA LTCF as one of their own CFP/CWP/CFL/CCWL. Which still doesn't get by the legal wording of federal law.

The good news is - the GFSZA is rarely if ever enforced. I think someone did the research somewhere else - maybe a handful of cases since the law was brought back.

When a state honors your license, and accepts it as one of it's own, while in that state, you are then, in fact and deed, licensed by that state within it's borders. It is not getting around anything. You do not get to carry a firearm under the same set of rules that you do while in your home state, you must follow the state you are in's rules. You are granted all the rights and privileges of being licensed within the state you are in. That is how reciprocity works. Not just for firearm permits and licenses, but for all permits and licenses that two states have agreed to reciprocity about.

Again, I did not post to get this old discussion going again, my point was that to state the law says one thing, when it clearly does not, to more than just me, shouldn't be done in this kind of thread. The law says licensed, not issued. More people than just dumb ol' me see a huge problem with how the current version of the GFSZA's meaning gets interpretted versus the actual way it is worded. ATF so called policy letter be damned. Let them successfully prosecute someone on the sole basis that they were in a reciprocal state and entered a GFSZ, and I will jump right on the band wagon behind you.

Putting it out in this particular thread, without at least an asterisk, is wrong, IMHO, is all I am saying....