PA Man Charged In School Carry Incident

[tvtog]

http://www.wjactv.com/news/news/some...edium=facebook

Story repeatedly maintains no disruption or malicious intent displayed by the man. Someone saw a gun in his back pocket...he was a frequent visitor to the school.

Sounds like the police felt that the wording of the law is vague and are looking to the courts to clarify. How much will it end up costing this guy to be the test case that it appears he had no interest in being?

I'm guessing "lawful purpose" will get its due scrutiny.

[Mr_Gixxer]

I'm sure him and his lawyer will settle with a lesser charge like others have in the past so he doesn't become the test case for other lawful purpose clarification.

Sad but likely true.

[CenterTree]

at no time was anybody placed in harm's way," said Link. "We feel that his visit there was legitimate and had it not been for someone noticing the weapon, it may not have been an issue."

See this is the whole point. NO ONE was in danger,,,, and it should NOT have been (or ever be) an issue for a LEGAL carrier to be in a school as he was.


Stupid laws!

Hope this guy comes out on top.


But, what's with people not using holsters anyway??? GEEZ!

[ungawa]

There was a case in the past couple years in which "lawful purpose" was recognized. But since it didn't have to be appealed to a higher court it is not binding precedence on other courts I think.

I think there might have been people here involved in it.

[clugnut]

It doesn't seem as if the police are at all vindictive in this particular case. The PA trooper interviewed seems to go out of his way to defend the individual charged. What could the charge be besides trespassing for carrying in a school zone? Is there a special statuate (sp?) for schools?

[PocketGenius]

"We feel that his visit there was legitimate and had it not been for someone noticing the weapon, it may not have been an issue"

said Cpl. William Link of the State Police barracks in Somerset.

It really does become absurd when a "legitimate" reason to carry a firearm doesn't include defending your children in the immediate wake of something like the New Town shooting.


And the fact that if no one had known it was there, there wouldn't have been a problem. If someone can help me to make sense of this, I'd be truly grateful.

[rikilii]

http://www.wjactv.com/news/news/some...edium=facebook

Story repeatedly maintains no disruption or malicious intent displayed by the man. Someone saw a gun in his back pocket...he was a frequent visitor to the school.

Sounds like the police felt that the wording of the law is vague and are looking to the courts to clarify. How much will it end up costing this guy to be the test case that it appears he had no interest in being?

I'm guessing "lawful purpose" will get its due scrutiny.

This case cries out for a liberal helping of prosecutorial discretion. How many crackheads get off with community service or less when they get caught straw-buying? And they're going to send this guy up the river for nothing?

[IGPJAP]

http://www.wjactv.com/news/news/some...edium=facebook

Story repeatedly maintains no disruption or malicious intent displayed by the man. Someone saw a gun in his back pocket...he was a frequent visitor to the school.

Sounds like the police felt that the wording of the law is vague and are looking to the courts to clarify. How much will it end up costing this guy to be the test case that it appears he had no interest in being?

I'm guessing "lawful purpose" will get its due scrutiny.

That would be helpful. Just as their is no case law supporting a trespassing charge/conviction for ignoring a no guns sign in PA, there is none regarding lawful purpose. Two examples that need it.

[PreserveandProtect]

IMHO, the term "Lawful Purpose" is perfectly clear. Any purpose that is not against the law.

I call "Separation of Powers" violation!

There is no Constitutionality question.
The term Lawful Purpose is quite clear.

The Somerset State Police *want* the law to be CHANGED. That falls under the Legislative Branch. The Judicial Branch has NO BUSINESS re-writing laws with the express intent of CHANGING THEIR MEANING. This would be a violation of the Separation of Powers.

And to charge a Citizen in an attempt to change a law? Despicable!

A Citizen can challenge a law, but Law Enforcement- as actors of the Executive Branch- are supposed to enforce and enact the laws, NOT write, re-write, or challenge them.

Does it happen? Sure. Look at the 9th Circuit if you want to read for a year If they object to a law for personal or political reasons, they strike it down.

Disgusting! SHAME on you, Somerset SP!

[ImminentDanger]

Is there someone from PAFOA in the Somerset area that could contact the defendant and refer him to the vast resources here??

ETA: I see another thread was already in action before this one:
http://forum.pafoa.org/pennsylvania-...luence-pa.html