Charges dropped for carrying concealed on School Property....

[Sandcut]

Now, wait just one damned minute now...
what about the CHILDRENSSS???

They should be taught how to properly use a pocket knife and allowed to carry one, daily, while in school like I used to back in the day.

[knight0334]

It's enough to arrest and charge you, if you possess any weapon (not just a gun) on school property. The Federal statute exempts you of you have an LTCF from the same state where the school is, but the PA statute allows for an affirmative defense, that you were there lawfully and had a lawful purpose. It's not enough to assert that you have an LTCF, your current purpose has to be lawful. Self-defense should be a lawful purpose, but then, the Democrats should have accepted the results of the last election, too.

What should be, is not what is. It can be a hassle, and expensive, to assert that defense.

Some jurisdictions won't charge you. Others, especially Philly and the counties that have been contaminated by Philly and NY and NJ refugees, might arrest you and let the courts sort it out.

Okay, so leave it off my person with mouth shut. Lol

Thank you.

That is why if someone does carry on school grounds, you should take special precaution to keep it concealed and by all means have your LTCF. If they have metal detectors that you must go thru - don't do it. Trespass can still apply.

[Justin2012]

I love how the school officials and administrators in the article are upset about the charges being dropped; they're too brainwashed to realize that gun free zones are nothing more than killing sites for mass murderers. Hopefully this ruling will open the door for teachers and other school employees to have some legal defense, if they're ever caught carrying weapons to defend themselves and their students.

[SigForLife]

It was by the PA Superior Court(just under the Supreme Court), and is binding statewide. And if I remember correctly, the time frame for appeal has lapsed. ...so it is standing judicial law.

It was slightly more binding than merely a Superior Court decision (which would be a 3 judge panel decision), as this was an en banc (meaning entire court) decision, which can only be overruled by the Pa Supreme Court. No appeal was taken and Mr Goslin is a free man with no conviction. See my article here - https://blog.princelaw.com/2017/02/1...hool-property/

[knight0334]

It was slightly more binding than merely a Superior Court decision (which would be a 3 judge panel decision), as this was an en banc (meaning entire court) decision, which can only be overruled by the Pa Supreme Court. No appeal was taken and Mr Goslin is a free man with no conviction. See my article here - https://blog.princelaw.com/2017/02/1...hool-property/

Even at that, it is binding statewide.

[Berncly]

It's enough to arrest and charge you, if you possess any weapon (not just a gun) on school property. The Federal statute exempts you of you have an LTCF from the same state where the school is, but the PA statute allows for an affirmative defense, that you were there lawfully and had a lawful purpose. It's not enough to assert that you have an LTCF, your current purpose has to be lawful. Self-defense should be a lawful purpose, but then, the Democrats should have accepted the results of the last election, too.

What should be, is not what is. It can be a hassle, and expensive, to assert that defense.

Some jurisdictions won't charge you. Others, especially Philly and the counties that have been contaminated by Philly and NY and NJ refugees, might arrest you and let the courts sort it out.

Am I understanding this correctly, that by the letter of the law, a school teacher in PA may go to work armed if they have a valid LTCF?
I thought it was verboten.

[internet troll]

Am I understanding this correctly, that by the letter of the law, a school teacher in PA may go to work armed if they have a valid LTCF?
I thought it was verboten.

It is in the employee hand book that we can not bring weapons on to school grounds and would be a reason to terminate our employment.

[normanvin]

Am I understanding this correctly, that by the letter of the law, a school teacher in PA may go to work armed if they have a valid LTCF?
I thought it was verboten.

It could be a work requirement. Where I work we are not allowed to have a gun on company property.

[Jhaydeno]

Am I understanding this correctly, that by the letter of the law, a school teacher in PA may go to work armed if they have a valid LTCF?
I thought it was verboten.

It is in the employee hand book that we can not bring weapons on to school grounds and would be a reason to terminate our employment.

Exactly as the Troll says - school policy (or employment contract) may stipulate a teacher not have a firearm on campus. Even if it didn't, I don't know too many administrators who would back the 2A side of things if a teacher was found with a gun in school. I take our FJ out in the field to shoot, but my wife drives it to work every day as a HS teacher, so I'm very careful not to leave items in the car.

Now that I think about it, I would like to hear the arguments for and against state preemption w/r/t a school firearms policy for teachers (employees). A school is a quasi-public institution supported by state tax dollars and highly regulated by the state DoE. How is an elected school board any different than an elected city council? It could be argued they have even more power to tax, and it could be argued that since state law has clearly been written w/r/t schools, preemption should apply to workers policy as well.

Can a township really prevent employees, or a school board prevent teachers, from carrying on the job?

[esh21167]

Exactly as the Troll says - school policy (or employment contract) may stipulate a teacher not have a firearm on campus. Even if it didn't, I don't know too many administrators who would back the 2A side of things if a teacher was found with a gun in school. I take our FJ out in the field to shoot, but my wife drives it to work every day as a HS teacher, so I'm very careful not to leave items in the car.

Now that I think about it, I would like to hear the arguments for and against state preemption w/r/t a school firearms policy for teachers (employees). A school is a quasi-public institution supported by state tax dollars and highly regulated by the state DoE. How is an elected school board any different than an elected city council? It could be argued they have even more power to tax, and it could be argued that since state law has clearly been written w/r/t schools, preemption should apply to workers policy as well.

Can a township really prevent employees, or a school board prevent teachers, from carrying on the job?

They do whatever they want until challenged by an entity with the same level of (or greater) legal resources than they have. And since their legal resources are taxpayer funded (perceived as 'free' to them), they are pretty large.