READ FIRST: Where you CAN and CANNOT Carry weapons in the State of Pennsylvania

[GunLawyer001]

The statute prohibits carry on school grounds. If the football field is separated from the school by a public roadway, it's not school grounds but merely school property.

However, the recent Commonwealth v. Goslin decision in Pennsylvania Superior Court (https://princelaw.files.wordpress.co...d_remanded.pdf) now makes the carry of firearms for lawful purposes a lawful defense.

To be fair, it always was a lawful defense, which is how Chris Anfuso won his case some years ago.

[Sgt.K]

To be fair, it always was a lawful defense, which is how Chris Anfuso won his case some years ago.

True, but they have now ruled explicitly that the law <gasp> means what it says...

[tl_3237]

The statute prohibits carry on school grounds. If the football field is separated from the school by a public roadway, it's not school grounds but merely school property.

However, the recent Commonwealth v. Goslin decision in Pennsylvania Superior Court (https://princelaw.files.wordpress.co...d_remanded.pdf) now makes the carry of firearms for lawful purposes a lawful defense.

Apart from the Goslin defense, I question the rationale for your statement bolded above.

Although the text of the proscription uses the term "grounds" the title of §912 uses the term "property"

§ 912. Possession of weapon on school property.

as does the language and heading for the original legislation and the Conference Committee report for Act 80-167

An act amending Title 18 (Crimes and Offenses) of the
Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, further PROVIDING CRIMINAL
PENALTIES FOR CARRYING WEAPONS ON SCHOOL PROPERTY

It would seem that the two terms are used interchangeably and would be designated so by a court unless there is already citable case law that would make the distinction between the terms with respect to §912. How did you arrive at your conclusion??

[knight0334]

School property would include satellite properties, not just the campus grounds.

The Goslin case helps us, but it isn't fool proof. A person could still be up shit creek without a paddle.

With the Goslin case, to cover your ass you should have your LTCF and carry concealed so not to draw attention(to avoid getting caught to begin with). Then on top of that, be carrying for a lawful purpose that you can justify and explain thoroughly in court.

[cham09]

School property would include satellite properties, not just the campus grounds.

The Goslin case helps us, but it isn't fool proof. A person could still be up shit creek without a paddle.

Thats kind of what I was thinking, it's still a defense which means you would still be charged and have to spend money on a lawyer pleading your case in court. To me its just easier to find a different, non-school affiliated viewing spot. Thanks all for the replies and info.

[Statkowski]

Although the text of the proscription uses the term "grounds" the title of §912 uses the term "property" as does the language and heading for the original legislation and the Conference Committee report for Act 80-167.

It would seem that the two terms are used interchangeably and would be designated so by a court unless there is already citable case law that would make the distinction between the terms with respect to §912. How did you arrive at your conclusion??

Yet the courts have also ruled that whatever the heading says is immaterial, it's what the statute specifically says that's important.

Is a bus garage located two miles away from a school "grounds" or "property"? The school district may own the real estate, but it's most certainly not school grounds. The curtilage surrounding a school building is definitely school grounds, and that's what 18 Pa. C.S. §912(b) addresses.

It is arguable.

[tl_3237]

Yet the courts have also ruled that whatever the heading says is immaterial, it's what the statute specifically says that's important.



Is a bus garage located two miles away from a school "grounds" or "property"? The school district may own the real estate, but it's most certainly not school grounds. The curtilage surrounding a school building is definitely school grounds, and that's what 18 Pa. C.S. §912(b) addresses.

It is arguable.

When a court has to resolve ambiguous wording it looks to the intent of the legislature, in this case what is meant by "grounds" with the text of §912, they certainly can and do look to the title as well as the legislative headings. Under the rules of statutory construction:

1 Pa CS § 1924. Construction of titles, preambles, provisos, exceptions and headings.

The title and preamble of a statute may be considered in the construction thereof. Provisos shall be construed to limit rather than to extend the operation of the clauses to which they refer. Exceptions expressed in a statute shall be construed to exclude all others. The headings prefixed to titles, parts, articles, chapters, sections and other divisions of a statute shall not be considered to control but may be used to aid in the construction thereof.

If the "property" is designated for use and frequented by students, even though physical separated from the buildings and their immediate curtilage by an intervening road, it would more reasonably fall under the §912 umbrella which was ostensibly created as a student safety measure. It would border on the absurd to assume that the legislature intended to withhold the law's protection simply because a road must be crossed. They even extend that same protection for countless miles within a conveyance to/from school.

As the Commonwealth Court opined in Bolden v. Chartiers Valley School Dist., 869 A. 2d 1134 - Pa: Commonwealth Court 2005

With these guidelines in mind, Section 912 appears to be a statute aimed at protecting the general welfare by prohibiting guns near schools, ...

If, as you purport, that "It is arguable" then an ambiguity would exist and the court would resort to the further rule of statutory construction:

§ 1921. Legislative intent controls.

(a) Object and scope of construction of statutes.--The object of all interpretation and construction of statutes is to ascertain and effectuate the intention of the General Assembly. Every statute shall be construed, if possible, to give effect to all its provisions.


(b) Unambiguous words control construction.--When the words of a statute are clear and free from all ambiguity, the letter of it is not to be disregarded under the pretext of pursuing its spirit.


(c) Matters considered in ascertaining intent.--When the words of a statute are not explicit, the intention of the General Assembly may be ascertained by considering, among other matters:

(1) The occasion and necessity for the statute.


(2) The circumstances under which it was enacted.


(3) The mischief to be remedied.


(4) The object to be attained.


(5) The former law, if any, including other statutes upon the same or similar subjects.


(6) The consequences of a particular interpretation.


(7) The contemporaneous legislative history.


(8) Legislative and administrative interpretations of such statute.

I cannot imagine that the court would adopt your definition -- I caution anyone relying on it that they would be at great legal risk in doing so.

[Statkowski]

You offer valid points, and you may well be right. Then again, it would indeed be wise to hold off on trying to push the envelope.

[lts1ow]

So, worst case scenario if you are carrying on a campus or somewhere thats marked no firearms is that you are asked to leave? (paranoid NJ mentality here)

[R L Suehr]

So, worst case scenario if you are carrying on a campus or somewhere thats marked no firearms is that you are asked to leave? (paranoid NJ mentality here)

No

School grounds are different then say a movie theater or shopping mall. Which will generally just ask you to leave. Be aware they can possibly charge you with trespassing if it is posted with signage.

School grounds are a whole different issue, covered by a different statute. Worse case there is your going to be arrested and have to hire a lawyer to argue your defense under the current statute. Granted it's been won before, but it will cost lots of time and money with no guarantee that you'll be exonerated.