ARRESTED: Open carrier on school grounds

[fallenleader]

As I see it, if he had “self defense” on his LTCF, assuming he had one, he should not have been arrested. I have no problem with the LEOs asking him a few questions and checking his license. Inconvenient but not a denial of rights. I think there might be facts we do not know. That is often the case with such reports.

i'm fine with being stopped and asked a few questions if i'm found wandering around a school. questions like "do your kids go here?" that can both eliminate and introduce quite a few follow ups.

i wish we could carry in a post office...

[gnbrotz]

As I see it, if he had “self defense” on his LTCF, assuming he had one, he should not have been arrested. I have no problem with the LEOs asking him a few questions and checking his license. Inconvenient but not a denial of rights. I think there might be facts we do not know. That is often the case with such reports.

Regardless of the reason checked on the application, or printed on the LTCF, any LTCF is valid for any and all situations that require one.

[GunLawyer001]

Regardless of the reason checked on the application, or printed on the LTCF, any LTCF is valid for any and all situations that require one.

This is true, but I'd go further and note that having the license makes concealed carry legal (a necessary but not sufficient condition for "lawful purpose"). Open carry doesn't require an LTCF under state law, but Federal law requires it, so that's a factor there, that your purpose isn't "lawful" if you're breaking Federal law, or walking to a drug buy.

"Not being illegal per se" is a good start on that affirmative defense, but he'd have to articulate something more, something to justify being where he was, and adding in "I always carry for self-defense". He doesn't have to assert that he feared attack on school property; our state doesn't force people to predict specific attacks months in advance, the way NJ and NY do. He just needs to show that his route from A to B logically included crossing school property.

That's assuming competent counsel and an unbiased judge who's willing to apply PA law instead of re-writing it to suit a Leftist agenda. Also assuming that the Defendant isn't a nut case with his own personal bizarre agenda.

[dsnover]

I live very close to this. First question I asked was if the guy has a LTCF. Police declined to comment on their FaceBook page, citing active investigation, etc. Elicited a good bit of comments, though.

Nonetheless, even having a LTCF and a 'lawful purpose' is an 'Affirmative Defense', which means that you still get arrested, but you have a chance of a reasonable defense. An example of 'The process IS the punishment', IMHO.

[fallenleader]

~ An example of 'The process IS the punishment', IMHO.

a lesson in trading liberty for safety.
its long past time we start holding our representatives to the fire.
these regulations should never have been written, much less pass.

[bob2055]

I looked up Andrew Krause on PA Court website Northampton County. His arrest for this incident is not listed.

[dsnover]

I looked up Andrew Krause on PA Court website Northampton County. His arrest for this incident is not listed.

Perhaps Morganelli did a catch and release, not wanting to go to trial on a losing case. Wish there were more details on the person (was there a LTCF, etc). Just not enough information to draw any conclusions.

[fallenleader]

yes and no. several can be drawn.
if he was anything more than a stop and question, with given info. there is disappointment
the law has been perverted.
and just like code. footnotes and detailed documention should accompany law.
how the helk is anyone supposed to understand the intent of a law withiut clear documentation?
instead we have to go to court and fight out interpretations.
how many times have people tried to pervert the 2nd?
the "any other purpose" enbanc was another example.

[SigForLife]

Perhaps Morganelli did a catch and release, not wanting to go to trial on a losing case. Wish there were more details on the person (was there a LTCF, etc). Just not enough information to draw any conclusions.

Unbeknownst to most, Morganelli has always taken the position that it was lawful to carry a weapon on school grounds, provided it wasn't being possessed/utilized for an unlawful purpose. He's refused to prosecute many such instances, far before the Goslin decision.

[jaseman]

I don't know about this town, but where I live, the acreage occupied by schools is a significant percentage of the entire borough. It's easy to walk across school property when traveling on foot, harder to always walk around them, and really difficult to avoid the Federal limits from school property.

The question could also be asked: was he on a sidewalk?

All of the schools in my neighborhood have a sidewalk running right through the property. Often connecting one street to another. Would that legally be considered some sort of 'public right of way'?