Weapon on school prperty and "all lawful purpose" defense

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RenoV8

Our local PD will not arrest if you have a valid CC permit...end of story.

---

Where does one aquire a CC permit? ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JenniferG

It's not that they don't know it's they don't care. They have a political agenda and will use any kind of weasel words to justify their political positions.

---

I understand. I think my response wasn't so much about this ruling as it was about the state of leftists in general. They are willing to put their names to rulings and statements that fly in the face of logic and reason and basic reading comprehension in order to accomplish their leftist political objectives. I guess I found these particular weasel words illuminating.

The claim about "absurd and unreasonable" just made me think of all the other ridiculous things I've heard leftists say that would require the listener to be either an imbecile or willfully complicit in a great sham if they are to be accepted.

It's pathetic. They should feel embarrassed for standing behind statements which are flagrantly false or illogical. But they have no shame. The leftist-elite and media applaud these acts and enthusiastically nod along and the low-information voters tune in for the sound bite and dutifully re-elect them.

That got me thinking of a few quotes:

"Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right."

"Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past."

--George Orwell

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bogey1

What he said ^^^^

If its upper darby, they'll most likely shoot you, then go to your house
and shoot your dog. If you dont own a dog, they'll shoot your neighbors if they have one.

---

and Chitwood will call you a scumbag on the 11 o'clock news.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TangoBravo605

Worth a read if you care to sort through this sort of stuff.... the excerpt I've pasted below is instructive as to how it might apply to some with LTCF who happens on school property.

Commonwealth v. Edwards, Pa: Superior Court 2019.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...2RdZb1GjQuzxqQ


[7] Without citing to any authority, Appellant argues that his possession of the knife for protection is a lawful purpose. Appellant's Brief at 14. The Commonwealth argues the opposite, "self-defense is not a lawful purpose for bringing a weapon to school. If it were, any student could bring a weapon to school." Commonwealth's Brief at 12.
In Commonwealth v. Goslin, 156 A.3d 314 (Pa. Super. 2017), this Court interpreted the language of Section 912(c). We held that the language, "other lawful purpose," "expands the defense to include any additional or different lawful reason not otherwise mentioned in the first clause of Section 912(c), regardless of whether it is school-related." Id. at 317-318. However, we noted, "[a]lthough we are concerned about individuals possessing weapons on school property, we are bound by the broad defense that the legislature has provided defendants in such cases. We would urge the legislature to review this language to ensure that the legislature's view has not changed since it enacted this defense in 1980." Goslin, 156 A.3d at 318, n. 4.
We are inclined to agree with the Commonwealth, however, we need not reach the question of whether self-defense constitutes an "other lawful purpose" within the meaning of the statute today.
[8] Appellant appears to argue that the Commonwealth had to rebut Appellant's references to self-defense, as conveyed in Dr. Kollar's testimony, because the disclosure came from a witness for the Commonwealth. See Appellant's Brief at 8.
[9] In fact, Dr. Kollar's testimony was subject to several interpretations. The court, acting as factfinder, could have believed that Appellant told Dr. Kollar that the knife was used for self-defense but rejected the credibility of Appellant's out-of-court-statement, given the self-serving nature of the declaration. Because we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict-winner, the Commonwealth is entitled to this interpretation on appeal.
[10] Moreover, by Appellant's own testimony, the lawful purpose for which he claims he had the knife occurred days before he brought it to school. Were we to accept Appellant's argument, it would be lawful for every student to carry a weapon to school so long as they had a lawful purpose for its possession at some point before bringing the weapon to school. This absurd result cannot be what the legislature intended. See 1 Pa.C.S.A. § 1922 (when ascertaining the legislative intent behind a statute, we presume "the General Assembly does not intend a result that is absurd, impossible of execution or unreasonable").

---

Perhaps Gunlawyer can help me out on this one but it seems that Superior Court has some remorse on their ruling in the Goslin decision. That they now implore the legislature to address this with more explicit language is regrettable. Again maybe I'm really missing something here. I will add though that this guy leaves a lot to be desired and giving two unrelated reasons leaves him with a credibility issue.

Seems limited to the lack of credibility of the defendant in this case and not an opinion on Goslin at all. He should have stuck to his story.
I don't discount that since def was a student, the court didn't want to give free reign to kids taking knives to school, so this outcome may have been predetermined.