Open Carry and Schools

[RyanRevolution]

I heard some say on here that you cannot open carry within 1000 feet of a school, the problem is that, I live within 1000 feet of a school, so does that mean that the second I walk outside with a gun, on my front lawn that I am illegal?

[knight0334]

No. Private properties are not included in the 1000ft rule.

Also, if have a license from the state in which the school is located you are exempt also.

[knight0334]

Here is the law on it:


US Title 18, Chapter 44, Subsection 922(q)

(1) The Congress finds and declares that—
(A) crime, particularly crime involving drugs and guns, is a pervasive, nationwide problem;
(B) crime at the local level is exacerbated by the interstate movement of drugs, guns, and criminal gangs;
(C) firearms and ammunition move easily in interstate commerce and have been found in increasing numbers in and around schools, as documented in numerous hearings in both the Committee on the Judiciary [3] the House of Representatives and the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate;
(D) in fact, even before the sale of a firearm, the gun, its component parts, ammunition, and the raw materials from which they are made have considerably moved in interstate commerce;
(E) while criminals freely move from State to State, ordinary citizens and foreign visitors may fear to travel to or through certain parts of the country due to concern about violent crime and gun violence, and parents may decline to send their children to school for the same reason;
(F) the occurrence of violent crime in school zones has resulted in a decline in the quality of education in our country;
(G) this decline in the quality of education has an adverse impact on interstate commerce and the foreign commerce of the United States;
(H) States, localities, and school systems find it almost impossible to handle gun-related crime by themselves—even States, localities, and school systems that have made strong efforts to prevent, detect, and punish gun-related crime find their efforts unavailing due in part to the failure or inability of other States or localities to take strong measures; and
(I) the Congress has the power, under the interstate commerce clause and other provisions of the Constitution, to enact measures to ensure the integrity and safety of the Nation’s schools by enactment of this subsection.


(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.

[RyanRevolution]

No. Private properties are not included in the 1000ft rule.

Also, if have a license from the state in which the school is located you are exempt also.

Ah, thanks, I just call Warwick township cops and they also confirmed this. Seemed very friendly about open carrying, he laughed when I said I am thinking about carrying an AK47 type rifle though.

[knight0334]

The problem though is that in PA, you aren't licensed to carry a long gun - except in Philly or during an emergency. You are licensed to carry a "firearm", as defined under 6102 - a handgun, SBS, or SBR.

You could still run afoul of 922(q) if you carry a long gun in a school zone.

You would have to carry/transport the long gun unloaded and in a secure enclosure.

[HSR47]

Ah, thanks, I just call Warwick township cops and they also confirmed this. Seemed very friendly about open carrying, he laughed when I said I am thinking about carrying an AK47 type rifle though.

FYI, Don't ever trust that the police know the law. Just look at what happened to Mark Fiorino in Philly a few months ago; The Sgt. who was first on scene was SURE that Mark was in violation of the law; So sure in fact, that he damn near SHOT Mr. Fiorino. It wasn't until 40 minutes into the encounter when the police on scene finally decided to check into the veracity of what Mr. Fiorino had stated from the get-go.

Sure you may get correct information from the police from time to time, but you're much more likely to get bad information, and such could potentially cause you to act in such a way that caused you massive legal liabilities.

The problem though is that in PA, you aren't licensed to carry a long gun - except in Philly or during an emergency. You are licensed to carry a "firearm", as defined under 6102 - a handgun, SBS, or SBR.

You could still run afoul of 922(q) if you carry a long gun in a school zone.

You would have to carry/transport the long gun unloaded and in a secure enclosure.

I'm not entirely sure, but it seems to me that an LTCF should do; My understanding of the wording of the Federal statute in question is that it doesn't really care what the license is called, or what specific behaviors it is required for, it just stipulates that one must have a license to carry to carry any type of firearm within the zone around the school.




Additionally, 2Bii would seem to imply that were we to eliminate the need to obtain an LTCF (Constitutional carry), and eliminate the ability to obtain such an LTCF at all, then it would be nominally illegal for PA residents to carry inside those 1000-ft school zones...

[GunLawyer001]

The problem though is that in PA, you aren't licensed to carry a long gun - except in Philly or during an emergency. You are licensed to carry a "firearm", as defined under 6102 - a handgun, SBS, or SBR.

You could still run afoul of 922(q) if you carry a long gun in a school zone.

You would have to carry/transport the long gun unloaded and in a secure enclosure.

It's the same as if the federal law said you needed to own a dog to carry a firearm in a school zone. It's just a condition. The difference between the PA and Federal definitions of "firearm" is irrelevant.

Rough and dirty: if you have a PA license to carry (handguns and certain SBR's and SBS's), then you are permitted to possess (all guns except antiques) in a school zone.

[Gun]

FYI, Don't ever trust that the police know the law. Just look at what happened to Mark Fiorino in Philly a few months ago; The Sgt. who was first on scene was SURE that Mark was in violation of the law; So sure in fact, that he damn near SHOT Mr. Fiorino.

And this example illustrates why one should never argue what is right, or wrong, with a police officer.

[Statkowski]

And this example illustrates why one should never argue what is right, or wrong, with a police officer.

Really? For sure?

“Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated: “Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.”


“An arrest made with a defective warrant, or one issued without affidavit, or one that fails to allege a crime is within jurisdiction, and one who is being arrested, may resist arrest and break away. lf the arresting officer is killed by one who is so resisting, the killing will be no more than an involuntary manslaughter.” Housh v. People, 75 111. 491; reaffirmed and quoted in State v. Leach, 7 Conn. 452; State v. Gleason, 32 Kan. 245; Ballard v. State, 43 Ohio 349; State v Rousseau, 241 P. 2d 447; State v. Spaulding, 34 Minn. 3621.


“When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justified.” Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80; Miller v. State, 74 Ind. 1.


“These principles apply as well to an officer attempting to make an arrest, who abuses his authority and transcends the bounds thereof by the use of unnecessary force and violence, as they do to a private individual who unlawfully uses such force and violence.” Jones v. State, 26 Tex. App. I; Beaverts v. State, 4 Tex. App. 1 75; Skidmore v. State, 43 Tex. 93, 903.


“An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and battery.” (State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260).


“Each person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest. In such a case, the person attempting the arrest stands in the position of a wrongdoer and may be resisted by the use of force, as in self- defense.” (State v. Mobley, 240 N.C. 476, 83 S.E. 2d 100).


“One may come to the aid of another being unlawfully arrested, just as he may where one is being assaulted, molested, raped or kidnapped. Thus it is not an offense to liberate one from the unlawful custody of an officer, even though he may have submitted to such custody, without resistance.” (Adams v. State, 121 Ga. 16, 48 S.E. 910).

[GunLawyer001]

Really? For sure?

“Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. . . . .

I'm always suspicious when cases are cited without years. A 2011 Supreme Court case is more binding than a 1910 case, for example. And context matters, a case decided without a contrary statute is no longer controlling once a contrary statute is enacted.

Current PA law says that you may not resist even an unlawful arrest. Has that law been overturned, or is it on the books?

Were any of those cases about the PA law?

I can cite cases that found that "separate but equal" schools are just fine. That the death penalty for stealing horses is Constitutional. But I'd be wrong to suggest to anyone that those legal principles are good law today.