school bus stop cc/oc ok or not

[streaker69]

Good thing we are at school for a "lawful purpose" then.

That's a defense, that can be argued successfully, at your trial. You'll still be laying out lots of cash to defend yourself.

[Cyclops]

It's right here in the statutes, found at the top of every page...





Found here... http://reference.pafoa.org/statutes/...hool-property/


.

The section heading refers to "on school property." Then it specifies "any conveyance." I take that to mean the conveyance has to be school property. We know we can carry in our cars with a LTCF. You can do that with your child in the car. Why would driving the child to school in a personal vehicle to school be an exception? I think that "on school property" is the main condition that includes all school property including conveyances. Of course, not being a lawyer mine is not an opinion to rely upon. And since my kids are 35 and 40 I don't have to drive them to school anymore.

[Statkowski]

The title of the subsection, "Possession of weapon on school property," means nothing. It's the "Offense Defined," subsection (b), which spells out what the law is, and it doesn't mention "school property" - it mentions "on the grounds of" instead. Two different things, don't confuse one with the other.

Likewise, people keep confusing the Federal "school zone" definition with the supposed State "school zone" definition. There is no State school zone.

[Curmudgeon]

The section heading refers to "on school property." Then it specifies "any conveyance." I take that to mean the conveyance has to be school property. We know we can carry in our cars with a LTCF. You can do that with your child in the car. Why would driving the child to school in a personal vehicle to school be an exception? I think that "on school property" is the main condition that includes all school property including conveyances. Of course, not being a lawyer mine is not an opinion to rely upon. And since my kids are 35 and 40 I don't have to drive them to school anymore.

Reread your 3rd sentence, did you leave out a word? We are not allowed to bring our guns onto school property regardless of the means of transport, made perfectly clear (read: "murky") elsewhere. Bear with me, I'm posting this on a phone.

Neither am I a lawyer, I don't even get to play one on TV. But when lawyers and law writers get together and decide to use fairly extreme language like "any conveyance" I am obliged to take them at face value unless I am prepared, personally, to go the distance. I try to avoid giving people advice that sets them up to go that distance on my behalf, so I tend to lean as far from legal trouble as I can.

My 4 "kids" are just a couple years younger than yours, literally, so like you I am spared the angst of Molly's predicament. I have always agreed that it sounds completely ridiculous and is at odds with other parts of the UFA, and I find it personally offensive that the statute is written that way, despite not having school-age kids.

The UFA is about a twisted mess, and it seems every 5 years or so it gets just a little worse. But hey, we could be Maryland, so we got that going for us, which is nice.

[Cyclops]

The grounds are school property. If the Heading means nothing, why is it there?

[Statkowski]

Yes, the school grounds are indeed school property, but not all school property is school grounds. The bus depot holding all the school's buses is school property, the football field two blocks away is school property, the book warehouse across town is school property, but none of them constitute school grounds.

The subsection's heading points you in the direction of what's being discussed, but it's the details spelled out in the sub-subsections that count.

[Cyclops]

Yes, the school grounds are indeed school property, but not all school property is school grounds. The bus depot holding all the school's buses is school property, the football field two blocks away is school property, the book warehouse across town is school property, but none of them constitute school grounds.

The subsection's heading points you in the direction of what's being discussed, but it's the details spelled out in the sub-subsections that count.

Maybe you are correct but the defining law ays:

18 Pa.C.S. § 3503: Criminal trespass

(d) Definition.--As used in this section, the term "school grounds" means any building of or grounds of any elementary or secondary publicly funded educational institution, any elementary or secondary private school licensed by the Department of Education, any elementary or secondary parochial school, any certified day-care center or any licensed preschool program.

Now when I read that it seems like it treats "grounds" like "property." Of course, I could be wrong, but i am not convinced you are right. We need the Gun Lawyer here.

Thanks for a very civil disagreement.

[PAMedic=F|A=]

Yes, the school grounds are indeed school property, but not all school property is school grounds. The bus depot holding all the school's buses is school property, the football field two blocks away is school property, the book warehouse across town is school property, but none of them constitute school grounds.

The subsection's heading points you in the direction of what's being discussed, but it's the details spelled out in the sub-subsections that count.

If your buses are own by the school you've got a huge problem with how your tax dollars are being spent.....

[Cyclops]

I live in Lower Merion Township in Montco. The school district owns the buses. Still we have one of the lowest school tax rates in PA and we have really good schools.

[Statkowski]

Maybe you are correct but the defining law ays:

18 Pa.C.S. § 3503: Criminal trespass

(d) Definition.--As used in this section, the term "school grounds" means any building of or grounds of any elementary or secondary publicly funded educational institution, any elementary or secondary private school licensed by the Department of Education, any elementary or secondary parochial school, any certified day-care center or any licensed preschool program.

Now when I read that it seems like it treats "grounds" like "property." Of course, I could be wrong, but i am not convinced you are right. We need the Gun Lawyer here.

Please, step back a minute, think about it, then return (no, I'm not trying to be snarky or anything). Yes, the school grounds are school property, but not all school property is school grounds, and because of that one can't easily use one term when the other is the appropriate one.

Besides, you can't apply a definition used in 18 Pa. C.S. § 3503 when you're talking about 18 Pa. C.S. § 912, just as the definition of "firearm" changes depending on what statute or regulation you're dealing with (e.g., for licensing purposes under 18 Pa. C.S. § 6106, a rifle or shotgun is not included in the definition of "firearm").

Thanks for a very civil disagreement.

Disagreements are more fun when they're civil. Besides, are we really disagreeing, or are we just trying to clarify the fine points?