Re: Other lawful purpose case in Drexel Hill?
Figured I would post some closure for this thread.
http://www.guns.com/2017/07/10/pa-di...rky-state-law/
Man brings gun to school, charges dropped because of ‘quirky’ state law
7/10/17 | by Christen Smith
A top prosecutor in Pennsylvania dropped charges last week against a man who brought a gun to school earlier this year, saying a “quirk” in state statute forced his hand.
Delaware County District Attorney Jack Whelan said Wednesday he withdrew charges against 32-year-old Domonique F. Jordan, a personal care aide from Philadelphia, for bringing a handgun to Drexel Hills Middle School in March. Law enforcement arrested Jordan, a concealed carry permit holder, after he admitted to school officials he had a gun in his backpack, according to the Delaware County Daily Times.
Whelan told the newspaper although Jordan violated Upper Darby School District policy against bringing weapons on school grounds, state law permits it so long as the weapon is used for a “lawful purpose” — whether that purpose is related to school or not.
“I think it’s a quirk in the law that needs to be looked at,” he said. “The statute points this out, that if you have a lawful purpose to carry the weapon, then you’re exempt from this part of the statute.”
Whelan based his withdrawal on a recent state Superior Court ruling handed down earlier this year in Commonwealth v. Goslin — a decision with wide-reaching consequences relatively unknown to state lawmakers who continue vetting a proposal to arm school teachers and staff.
In Commonwealth v. Goslin, a carpenter named Andrew Goslin faced a first-degree misdemeanor charge for bringing a pocket knife to a parent-teacher conference at his son’s elementary school in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania in 2014. He appealed his conviction, insisting he used the pocket knife at work and in his life for mundane reasons — such as opening a tuna can in his lunch box — and therefore didn’t deserve the misdemeanor.
The Superior Court panel agreed, vacating his sentence in a Feb. 16 ruling.
“Because of the case law, once he demonstrates that he had a lawful purpose, we were no longer able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt (that he violated the law),” Whelan told the newspaper. “Obviously, we would always want to see that school policies would not allow anyone to carry any type of weapon on their person. …In this case, he complied with the statute and we have to uphold whatever the law is.”
Re: Other lawful purpose case in Drexel Hill?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
internet troll
“I think it’s a quirk in the law that needs to be looked at,” he said. “The statute points this out, that if you have a lawful purpose to carry the weapon, then you’re exempt from this part of the statute.”
"... for other lawful purposes" is not a quirk.
Re: Other lawful purpose case in Drexel Hill?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Gun
"... for other lawful purposes" is not a quirk.
Agreed.
Re: Other lawful purpose case in Drexel Hill?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Sgt.K
Alright, food for thought:
Many of us believe that freedom means freedom. If I am not harming you by what I do, then leave me alone. If I choose to carry 1000 rounds (that's over 35 pounds plus mags for me, BTW) for my own reasons, what business is it of anyone else?
Essentially, at what point do we lovers of freedom and liberty choose to infringe upon someone else's liberty? At what point do we step out onto that slippery slope? Personally, I like to avoid that edge in hopes that others will give me the same consideration.
My 2¢
Just noticed your reply. I do not think there should be any legal infringement. My post would be a personal concern if I knew you to be carrying 1000 rounds of ammo with you barring a range trip or moving or something along those lines. If i do not know the reason I would be remiss in my duties to not take at least a cursory interest.
Re: Other lawful purpose case in Drexel Hill?
A friend of mine last name is quirk.
As for the law being a "quirk" The prosecutor is a "dork".
Re: Other lawful purpose case in Drexel Hill?
Your latest comment prompted me to go back and re-read this thread. Can't believe I missed this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
mpan72
...he was leafing through one of my hunting clips and said...
Sweet.
Re: Other lawful purpose case in Drexel Hill?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Sgt.K
Your latest comment prompted me to go back and re-read this thread. Can't believe I missed this:
Sweet.
You are the only person who noticed.
Re: Other lawful purpose case in Drexel Hill?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Gun
"... for other lawful purposes" is not a quirk.
In Whelan"s perspective it is a quirk, or more often referred to as a loophole, because the lawful purposes provision (quirk) benefits firearm owners instead of restricting them thus flying into the face of an agenda.
Re: Other lawful purpose case in Drexel Hill?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
c45man
In Whelan"s perspective it is a quirk, or more often referred to as a loophole, because the lawful purposes provision (quirk) benefits firearm owners instead of restricting them thus flying into the face of an agenda.
It makes a lot of sense in the context of a school, first because the law is aimed at school kids 5-18 years old, none of whom are likely to be bringing a handgun into school legally; and second, because the definition of a weapon is so broad that it includes a slight majority of all "objects" that a human being can lift and carry. You can physically injure someone with a belt, a pencil, a pair of scissors, a car key, a tire iron, a hammer, a spare lug nut, the car itself, a brick, a plastic bag, a spork, a neck tie . . . . . anything that can pierce flesh or cause a concussion or smother a mouth and nostrils or strangle a kid. The law MUST exempt innocent possession of lawful objects, else the parking lot would be grounds for hundreds of criminal prosecutions every day, except for the Drivers Ed vehicle, which is there for an official school class.