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

[SigForLife]

The Superior Court just published its decision in Commonwealth v. Goslin regarding possession of weapons on school property. I have everything on our blog, including a copy of the decision - https://blog.princelaw.com/2017/02/1...hool-property/

[R L Suehr]

Well that's refreshing. A court that actually sticks to the wording and original intent, instead of rewriting things to match their feelings on the matter.

[sgmwatkins]

Wow. So is this case law now? How will that affect a person w/a LTCF if they carry on school grounds? Should they fear of arrest? Just curious.

I won't be the test case......

[GunLawyer001]

Wow. So is this case law now? How will that affect a person w/a LTCF if they carry on school grounds? Should they fear of arrest? Just curious.

I won't be the test case......

I've never heard of a case where a defendant lost at trial with a competent lawyer, if he'd done nothing other than possess a weapon on school property for a lawful purpose.

What usually happens is that the person is a minor and commits a crime just by having a gun, or he has a knife and drugs, or it's someone who lawfully possesses the weapon and he's offered a plea deal. When facing a prohibiting M-1 conviction, people will jump at pleading to a summary offense, or taking an ARD plan.

The Anfuso case we covered here back in 2010, where we very thoroughly explained the law and the best arguments (which appear to have worked again this time, congrats!), was an exception, because although Mr. Anfuso had counsel (me), the DA made the mistake of not offering any plea. So we took it to trial, and won.

The case in this thread was a defendant who botched the trial pro se, no lawyer, and no obvious understanding of the legal system. Again, not a case of a single-offense defendant represented by counsel.

The point, to answer your question directly, is that if you're walking your dog past the school and carrying a gun, the odds were always low that you'd be convicted of an M-1 misdemeanor if you hired a competent lawyer early on, given the historical lack of successful prosecutions. The law was always aimed at kids with guns or knives, not at adults going about their business. This case provides more support for your lawyer, so that's good, but you can still be arrested and you'll still need a lawyer, and then you'll probably be acquitted, just like before.

It's better to have this precedent than not, but if anyone knows of someone who was convicted after a trial of JUST possessing a lawful weapon for a lawful purpose, I'd like to hear it.

http://forum.pafoa.org/showthread.ph...lawful+purpose

[Sgt.K]

Wow. So is this case law now? How will that affect a person w/a LTCF if they carry on school grounds? Should they fear of arrest? Just curious.

I won't be the test case......

The ruling included the text

for purposes of the instant case

and the case was remanded back to the trial court.

My non-lawyer reading says this is NOT precedent setting.

It's still huge, though...

[john9001]

The "lawful purpose" is the LTCF.

A person is licensed to carry so the act of carrying is the lawful purpose.

[Orlov556]

The "lawful purpose" is the LTCF.

A person is licensed to carry so the act of carrying is the lawful purpose.

Too bad you arent on the PA Superior or Supreme Court. The deck is stacked in the opposite direction for that one right now.

[Statkowski]

My non-lawyer reading says this is NOT precedent setting.

Most respectfully disagree. Previously, district attorneys were hesitant to charge on 912(c) violations for fear of finding out just exactly what 912(c) said (i.e., the weapons violation charge would be downgraded to disorderly conduct or something).

Now we know what 912(c) means. And the court has suggested that the state legislators word it better.

[SigForLife]

The "lawful purpose" is the LTCF.

A person is licensed to carry so the act of carrying is the lawful purpose.

Not necessarily. While I highly doubt an upstanding citizen, who procures an LTCF would ever seek to commit a crime, if an individual lawfully possessing a firearm, pursuant to a valid LTCF, went on school grounds with the intent to threaten someone with the firearm, such would not be an "other lawful purpose" and that individual could not avail him/herself of the defense.

[SigForLife]

The reason it was remanded back is that although the record supports that Mr. Goslin had a lawful purpose, the trial court never determined whether or not he had a lawful purpose, as it merely conflated the two causes and held that it was not possessed relative to a school activity. Since posting the article, I have heard from the DA and they will not be appealing the case and intend to nolle prosequi the charges upon remand.