Gun Free School Zone

[farmplinker]

The Gun Free School Zone (GFSZ) law prohibits people from having guns within 1000 feet of any school, excluding within private property or if it's unloaded and inside a locked container. The GFSZ law also excludes people who have a carry permit. So, It appears anyone with a LTC is fine. This question isn't about carrying by those with LTC permits. It's a more general hunting/transporting question.

The federal GFSZ law doesn't exclude those non-license-holders who have an unloaded gun in their car, only those who have an unloaded gun in a locked container. So, let's say you're going hunting and you have your unloaded shotguns or rifles in soft-sided cases, and you stop at a donut shop within 1000 feet of a school. Or simply drive past a school. It seems to me you are violating the GFSZ law. I suppose a locked trunk could possibly qualify as a locked container, but what about someone in an SUV or pickup? Or someone who lays their guns on the back seat of their car?

I'm betting this happens a thousand times a day in PA in hunting season. Am I interpreting this wrong?

What if you are hunting in fields and get within 1000 feet of a school with your loaded gun? I'm sure this happens all the time, too. Heck, I've hunted that close to a school before (and before I had my carry license). Does the "private property" exclusion pertain to hunters in the woods within 1000 feet of a school?

Does anyone ever get busted for violating the GFSZ law?

[LittleRedToyota]

i'd suggest taking a look at this thread:

http://www.pafoa.org/forum/concealed...es-please.html

[ChamberedRound]

Originally Posted by LittleRedToyota

i'd suggest taking a look at this thread:

http://www.pafoa.org/forum/concealed...es-please.html

Thanks, LRT. Closing this thread.

EDIT: Re-opening this thread at the request of the OP. The thread referenced above discusses GFSZs in the context of carrying a handgun open/concealed, whereas the OP's intent here was to discuss GFSZs with respect to hunting and transporting long guns.

[Chazman321]

It is still private property, the only laws that matter to you at that time are the regulations in the Game Law that provides you must be atleast 200 yards from any occupied building unless you have permission from the owner of the building. So as long as you follow that, you're golden...


Chaz200yardruleman321

[LittleRedToyota]

Originally Posted by ChamberedRound

EDIT: Re-opening this thread at the request of the OP. The thread referenced above discusses GFSZs in the context of carrying a handgun open/concealed, whereas the OP's intent here was to discuss GFSZs with respect to hunting and transporting long guns.

i still suggest the OP read the post i made in the other thread regarding version 1 of the GFSZ law being tossed by the supreme court and version 2 being nearly indentical and no one ever having been prosecuted under verson 2...along with the two links i gave in that post.

[farmplinker]

Originally Posted by LittleRedToyota

i still suggest the OP read the post i made in the other thread regarding version 1 of the GFSZ law being tossed by the supreme court and version 2 being nearly indentical and no one ever having been prosecuted under verson 2...along with the two links i gave in that post.

Thank you for re-opening the thread, chamberedround.

I did read the other thread, LRT. In fact, I posted a question there, but all of the replies are pertaining to concealed carry on school property. Although I have a LTC, my brother and most of my hunting buddies don't. And I know we all drive past schools to go hunting, with shotguns and rifles NOT locked in containers. And we have hunted within 1000 feet (but outside the safety zone) of school buildings on occassion.

To be honest, I never gave the GFSZ law a thought until someone I know happened to mention hunting in a field near a school, and breaking a federal law. I appreciate your response that nobody is ever prosecuted, but it just seems like one more hammer that can be used against an honest gun owner minding his own business. Another "feel-good" law that is applied at the discretion of prosecutors.

[farmplinker]

Originally Posted by Chazman321

It is still private property, the only laws that matter to you at that time are the regulations in the Game Law that provides you must be atleast 200 yards from any occupied building unless you have permission from the owner of the building. So as long as you follow that, you're golden...


Chaz200yardruleman321

I presume you're talking about hunting 200 to 1000 yards from a school on private property. That's the way I interpret it, too. But what about the shotgun or rifle that's in a soft case on your backseat, or in the hatch of your SUV, as you stop at the C-store or donut shop near a school? Not in a locked container.

[LittleRedToyota]

Originally Posted by farmplinker

it just seems like one more hammer that can be used against an honest gun owner minding his own business. Another "feel-good" law that is applied at the discretion of prosecutors.

i agree completely.

and, until someone is prosecuted under version 2 of the GFSZ law, we won't really know if you need to worry about it or not.

my guess is that the current supreme court would toss it in about 2 seconds, but who knows...and, it would have already cost you a lot to even get it that far.

however, i also think the likelihood of your actually being prosecuted under version 2 is very small. for one thing, local authorities often don't prosecute federal laws in general. and, given that version 1 was declared unconstitutional, and version 2 substantially exactly the same as version 1, i don't think too many prosecuters are going to want to be the one to do it.

but, again, who knows.

this law spotlights what is, imho, a fundamental flaw in our system. in order to get a law thrown out as unconstitutional by the supreme court, someone has to be arrested and prosecuted for violating the law. i think you should be able to petition the court to review the constitutionality of a law without actually being arrested and prosecuted for it.

i share your frustration. i just don't think you are going to find the definitive answer you are looking for.

keep in mind, though, that having an LTCF exempts you from the entire law...not just carrying a concealed handgun in a GFSZ. so, even if you aren't interested in carrying a handgun, and are only worried about long guns and hunting, it would still be in your interest to get an LTCF if you can to do away with concerns about violating the GFSZ act by hunting or carrying long guns in a GFSZ.

[Statkowski]

The following letter might be of interest:

Dear Mr. Statkowski:

Thank you for contacting me in regard to your interest in Commonwealth laws regarding firearms. I always appreciate the opportunity to respond to these questions and appreciate your continued interest in this matter.

In your letter, you had inquired about the meaning of the phrase "possessed for other lawful purpose" found in 18 Pa. C.S. § 912(c), relating to possession of weapon on school property. Specifically, you wondered if this language recognized a Pennsylvania license to carry a firearm as a "lawful purpose."

Section 912, enacted in 1980, reads as follows:

"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."

According to House legal staff, at least two statewide courts have had the opportunity to address the issue of possession of firearms on school property by an individual who was licensed pursuant to 18 Pa. C.S. § 6109. Neither has issued an absolute rule.

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 1134, 1139, fn 7 (2005).

The decision in Bolden, in particular the examples provided by the court in footnote 7, should give pause to an individual licensed under 18 Pa. C.S. § 6109. Although there is no iron-clad rule, in neither case did the court consider a license as a defense to a violation of the Crimes Code language concerning possession of weapons on school property. Until a definitive court ruling on this question, an individual would be in jeopardy of prosecution. It is worth noting that the penalty for a conviction under 18 Pa. C.S § 912 would be a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable by up to 5 years imprisonment and a fine of up to $10,000.

It is hoped that this information is useful. If I can be of further assistance on this or other legislative matters, please do not hesitate to contact my office.

Sincerely,

Sam Smith
STATE REPRESENTATIVE
66th Legislative District

[PeteG]

Originally Posted by LittleRedToyota

i still suggest the OP read the post i made in the other thread regarding version 1 of the GFSZ law being tossed by the supreme court and version 2 being nearly indentical and no one ever having been prosecuted under verson 2...along with the two links i gave in that post.

There have been prosecutions under the amended GFSZ law. One court of appeals has held the law to be constitutional as re-written. One U.S. District Court in a different federal circuit has held that it is still unconstitutional. The 3rd Circuit (which includes Pennsylvania) has not spoken on the matter, to the best of my knowledge.

This refers, of course, to the Federal act. The state law is entirely different.