Superior Court, en banc, Decision regarding Possessing Weapons on School Property!

[knight0334]

Picking up or dropping off your kid at school is a "lawful purpose."

Um, no.

Picking up the kid at school isn't a lawful purpose of possession. Possession has to be otherwise lawful. ....like self-defense, law enforcement, sporting purposes, etc, etc - something directly related to the weapon.

[ideaman]

We keep referring to PA's Constitution as an assurance of our rights. Yet today's local article titled, "Wolf's state police fee plan a fraction of local police cost",
showed that raising auto registration, gas tax etc., i.e. 1.2 billion, was supposed to go, according to PA Constitution, STRICTLY TO HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION.
Yet they diverted 800 million to the state police.

If the PA's swampers, both reps and dems, could willy-nilly ignore that Sacred Constitution, what makes you think your other so called,CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS,
are safe and dependable?

[Mitch10mm]

The government breaks the law and the citizens fret and worry about breaking the law or being arrested and having a valid defense.

[ideaman]

The government breaks the law and the citizens fret and worry about breaking the law or being arrested and having a valid defense.

The problem is not the "government", per-se. It's a human with a name that should be held responsible and threatened with a recall.

[Mitch10mm]

It's so many people in government. It's entire parties. It's judges and committees and councils. They are picking and choosing what laws apply, what laws to enforce and ignoring whatever restraints that should prevent them from doing their bidding. And large parts of the population agree with them if it goes along with their personal opinion.

It used to be "If you don't like a law, work to have it changed".
Now it's to simply ignore it especially if you are in government and are pandering to the social justice of the day.

But we better know every last bit of minutiae of gun law. We better pay "Our fair share".. and if all else fails Disorderly Conduct.

[Royinmontco]

Actually I did. But I'll let your rudeness slide. Do have a point?

How can you categorize something that is specifically spelled out as being an affirmative defense as strictly "not legal". There, do you understand my point, now?

[98Redline]

How can you categorize something that is specifically spelled out as being an affirmative defense as strictly "not legal". There, do you understand my point, now?

I think his point was that the statute does not say you can't be arrested and charged, it provides for an affirmative defense at trial against the charges. You still get arrested, locked up, and have to deal with an attorney and courts, but you are allowed to argue "other legal purpose".

[KCJones]

I think his point was that the statute does not say you can't be arrested and charged, it provides for an affirmative defense at trial against the charges. You still get arrested, locked up, and have to deal with an attorney and courts, but you are allowed to argue "other legal purpose".

^^^THIS. It's not "legal" but it's "defensible".

[jpg5080]

Um, no.

Picking up the kid at school isn't a lawful purpose of possession. Possession has to be otherwise lawful. ....like self-defense, law enforcement, sporting purposes, etc, etc - something directly related to the weapon.

This raises an interesting question, what if self-defense is not the reason you listed for applying for a LTCF? I am genuinely curious if it would matter.

[knight0334]

This raises an interesting question, what if self-defense is not the reason you listed for applying for a LTCF? I am genuinely curious if it would matter.

Wouldn't matter. That is just a throw-back from the old May Issue days where you needed a reason.

If you are carrying today for self-defense, that would be an argument you can make in court regardless as to what box is X'd on your LTCF.