Church and CC in PA?

[jcabin]

... and what does the last phrase cover?

Self-Defense, IMO.

[gnbrotz]

... and what does the last phrase cover?

Legally, no one can say for sure. There has not yet been a court decision that confirms or denies that this language allows a LTCF holder to lawfully carry, though there is currently two cases which could do so.

It's also worth noting that this language must be asserted as an "affirmative defense" rather than being an "exception" to the prohibition, which make it more of an uphill battle for the defendant, IMO.

[Legionnaire]

It's also worth noting that this language must be asserted as an "affirmative defense"

I understand what this means, but what indicates that it must be asserted as such? Is it something about how the law is phrased?

[knight0334]

Legally, no one can say for sure. There has not yet been a court decision that confirms or denies that this language allows a LTCF holder to lawfully carry, though there is currently two cases which could do so.

It's also worth noting that this language must be asserted as an "affirmative defense" rather than being an "exception" to the prohibition, which make it more of an uphill battle for the defendant, IMO.

Yep. With an affirmative defense you claim to have done the act*, but are asserting a justification. You then have to prove the justification.


*that claim doesn't mean you plea guilt though.

[gnbrotz]

I understand what this means, but what indicates that it must be asserted as such? Is it something about how the law is phrased?

The fact that it is called a "defense" and not an "exception". There are "exceptions" to needing a LTCF. One can expect to act based on those exceptions and not be arrested if they can demonstrate that they qualify if the need should arise.

With a "defense", one should expect to be charged with the offense, and (attempt to) show the court that their actions are within the scope of the "defense" allowed for in the statute.

Another example:
There is never an "exemption" to taking someone's life, but there can be a "defense" if specific conditions are met. That's something you will most likely have to prove to a jury, not the first officer on the scene.

[Legionnaire]

The fact that it is called a "defense" and not an "exception".

Understand. Thanks!

[donm]

With a "defense", one should expect to be charged with the offense, and (attempt to) show the court that their actions are within the scope of the "defense" allowed for in the statute.

I'd call that pretty pessimistic. You should expect to be arrested and charged but if it's clearly self defense the DA or Grand Jury will usually drop the charge. Unless it's Philly, of course, where they think a 20% conviction rate (their score card) is pretty good. But then there's the civil suit, where the standard of proof is much lower and the consequences potentially disastrous.

[imashooter2]

What would be the basis of the civil suit for carrying on school grounds and who would have standing to file?

Seems far fetched to me...