Weapon on school prperty and "all lawful purpose" defense

[TangoBravo605]

Worth a read if you care to sort through this sort of stuff.... the excerpt I've pasted below is instructive as to how it might apply to some with LTCF who happens on school property.

Commonwealth v. Edwards, Pa: Superior Court 2019.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...2RdZb1GjQuzxqQ


[7] Without citing to any authority, Appellant argues that his possession of the knife for protection is a lawful purpose. Appellant's Brief at 14. The Commonwealth argues the opposite, "self-defense is not a lawful purpose for bringing a weapon to school. If it were, any student could bring a weapon to school." Commonwealth's Brief at 12.
In Commonwealth v. Goslin, 156 A.3d 314 (Pa. Super. 2017), this Court interpreted the language of Section 912(c). We held that the language, "other lawful purpose," "expands the defense to include any additional or different lawful reason not otherwise mentioned in the first clause of Section 912(c), regardless of whether it is school-related." Id. at 317-318. However, we noted, "[a]lthough we are concerned about individuals possessing weapons on school property, we are bound by the broad defense that the legislature has provided defendants in such cases. We would urge the legislature to review this language to ensure that the legislature's view has not changed since it enacted this defense in 1980." Goslin, 156 A.3d at 318, n. 4.
We are inclined to agree with the Commonwealth, however, we need not reach the question of whether self-defense constitutes an "other lawful purpose" within the meaning of the statute today.
[8] Appellant appears to argue that the Commonwealth had to rebut Appellant's references to self-defense, as conveyed in Dr. Kollar's testimony, because the disclosure came from a witness for the Commonwealth. See Appellant's Brief at 8.
[9] In fact, Dr. Kollar's testimony was subject to several interpretations. The court, acting as factfinder, could have believed that Appellant told Dr. Kollar that the knife was used for self-defense but rejected the credibility of Appellant's out-of-court-statement, given the self-serving nature of the declaration. Because we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict-winner, the Commonwealth is entitled to this interpretation on appeal.
[10] Moreover, by Appellant's own testimony, the lawful purpose for which he claims he had the knife occurred days before he brought it to school. Were we to accept Appellant's argument, it would be lawful for every student to carry a weapon to school so long as they had a lawful purpose for its possession at some point before bringing the weapon to school. This absurd result cannot be what the legislature intended. See 1 Pa.C.S.A. § 1922 (when ascertaining the legislative intent behind a statute, we presume "the General Assembly does not intend a result that is absurd, impossible of execution or unreasonable").

[internet troll]

There's been some good discussion on this topic. Here are a few threads.

Goslin decision
http://forum.pafoa.org/showthread.ph...ghlight=goslin


A Drexel Hill case
http://forum.pafoa.org/showthread.ph...ghlight=goslin

More on the Drexel Hill Case
http://forum.pafoa.org/showthread.ph...ghlight=goslin

Another school case.

http://forum.pafoa.org/showthread.ph...ghlight=goslin

[RenoV8]

Our local PD will not arrest if you have a valid CC permit...end of story.

[jthrelf]

Our local PD will not arrest if you have a valid CC permit...end of story.

Source? Which PD?

[bogey1]

What he said ^^^^

If its upper darby, they'll most likely shoot you, then go to your house
and shoot your dog. If you dont own a dog, they'll shoot your neighbors if they have one.

[donotknowme]

Wouldn’t School policy of “no weapons” still apply to student even if the law allowed for ‘other lawful purpose’ exception?

[buckengr]

Commonwealth v. Edwards, Pa: Superior Court 2019.

[...]

Were we to accept Appellant's argument, it would be lawful for every student to carry a weapon to school so long as they had a lawful purpose for its possession at some point before bringing the weapon to school. This absurd result cannot be what the legislature intended. See 1 Pa.C.S.A. § 1922 (when ascertaining the legislative intent behind a statute, we presume "the General Assembly does not intend a result that is absurd, impossible of execution or unreasonable").

Maybe it's just me, but I don't find the notion that someone might want to have a tool with them for self-defense prior to actually needing it, regardless of whether or not they personally had a justifying event occur previously to be absurd or unreasonable.

I find this court's interpretation of the law with regard to the desire to protect ones life "absurd and unreasonable".

What part of "shall not be questioned" don't they understand? Basic literacy among judges must be shit.

[JenniferG]

Maybe it's just me, but I don't find the notion that someone might want to have a tool with them for self-defense prior to actually needing it, regardless of whether or not they personally had a justifying event occur previously to be absurd or unreasonable.

I find this court's interpretation of the law with regard to the desire to protect ones life "absurd and unreasonable".

What part of "shall not be questioned" don't they understand? Basic literacy among judges must be shit.

It's not that they don't know it's they don't care. They have a political agenda and will use any kind of weasel words to justify their political positions.

[GunLawyer001]

Another example of hard cases making bad law, but this case is both non-precedential, and decided solely on credibility grounds.

The defendant had a prior burglary conviction (sort of; as a minor, he was adjudicated delinquent based on his committing a burglary). He showed up at school smelling of weed. He gave 2 different reasons for carrying the knife into school. The court chose to refuse to believe him, and the only quibble I have is that they didn't find any "unlawful" reason for his possession. Without evidence of unlawful intent, the court should presume a lawful purpose (it's a binary set, all purposes are either lawful or unlawful), but they didn't because they didn't like this kid. Another court might do the same because they don't like guns.

I have to say, it's a hard argument to make for minor children to have the right to carry knives in school for self-defense, and that's the deal here. Whatever ambiguity is in the statute is going to be resolved against the Thunderdome outcome of urban yutes carrying shivs into Biology 101.

Our case (Mr. Anfuso's case) had better facts; he was an adult taking vo-tech courses, with a licensed firearm securely in his vehicle as he was inside studying a curriculum designed for those intending to become police officers. Adults DO have the statutory right to carry weapons for self-defense. Knives are different, and the Prince case involved an adult who carried a knife for utilitarian reasons, which would also be "lawful purposes".

[Sandcut]

I would argue that knives are not inherently weapons, but rather, tools that I use daily. Otherwise, the school lunch ladies are all criminals for using knives in the cafeteria and that would be absurd.