Lock Haven University carry. wtf is this?

[LittleRedToyota]

I'm talking about establishing state funded schools as public ground, where the UFA still stands. Thus forcing state funded schools to allow the legal carrying of firearms.

but how do you think the UFA prevents a public state school from making a rule against carrying on their property?

for example, the UFA does not prohibit the DCNR from making such a rule regarding state parks. the legislature had to pass a specific law to overrule the DCNR on that. i don't see how this situation would be any different. the preemption clause does not apply to state agencies like the DCNR and also does not apply to state schools. it applies only to counties, municipalities, and townships.

i would argue that sec 21 of the PA constitution prohibits any government agency or government funded whatever from prohibiting carrying on their property, but clearly the courts do not see it that way. however, even that doesn't have anything to do with the UFA.

[jcabin]

but how do you think the UFA prevents a public state school from making a rule against carrying on their property?

for example, the UFA does not prohibit the DCNR from making such a rule regarding state parks. the legislature had to pass a specific law to overrule the DCNR on that. i don't see how this situation would be any different. the preemption clause does not apply to state agencies like the DCNR and also does not apply to state schools. it applies only to counties, municipalities, and townships.

i would argue that sec 21 of the PA constitution prohibits any government agency or government funded whatever from prohibiting carrying on their property, but clearly the courts do not see it that way. however, even that doesn't have anything to do with the UFA.

Wasn't the DCNR making up their own regulations as they went anyway?
From what I understand they knew what they were doing was illegal, but it took injunctions to settle the issue.

[LittleRedToyota]

Wasn't the DCNR making up their own regulations as they went anyway?
From what I understand they knew what they were doing was illegal, but it took injunctions to settle the issue.

there were no injunctions. what they were doing was not illegal.

the legislature passed a specific law negating part of their regulation. but, up until then, there was nothing illegal about what they were doing. and there were never any injunctions or other court rulings on that matter at all.

[headcase]

I can't believe what I have seen posted by Jcabin in this thread so far. I just cruised in to check this thread out real quick and don't have time to detail this at the moment, but I'll be back a little later....

[headcase]

Just to get this out of the way, so that anyone coming to have a look can read the actual statute, What is referenced here as "the preemption statute" or simply "preemption", refers to this: 6120

18 Pa.C.S. § 6120: Limitation on the regulation of firearms and ammunition
(a) General rule.--No county, municipality or township may in any manner regulate the lawful ownership, possession, transfer or transportation of firearms, ammunition or ammunition components when carried or transported for purposes not prohibited by the laws of this Commonwealth.
(a.1) No right of action.--
(1) No political subdivision may bring or maintain an action at law or in equity against any firearms or ammunition manufacturer, trade association or dealer for damages, abatement, injunctive relief or any other relief or remedy resulting from or relating to either the lawful design or manufacture of firearms or ammunition or the lawful marketing or sale of firearms or ammunition to the public.
(2) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to prohibit a political subdivision from bringing or maintaining an action against a firearms or ammunition manufacturer or dealer for breach of contract or warranty as to firearms or ammunition purchased by the political subdivision.
(b) Definitions.--As used in this section, the following words and phrases shall have the meanings given to them in this subsection:
"Dealer." The term shall include any person engaged in the business of selling at wholesale or retail a firearm or ammunition.
"Firearms." This term shall have the meaning given to it in section 5515 (relating to prohibiting of paramilitary training) but shall not include air rifles as that term is defined in section 6304 ( relating to sale and use of air rifles).
"Political subdivision." The term shall include any home rule charter municipality, county, city, borough, incorporated town, township or school district.

So, we are asked a question in post #2:

Wait...isn't Lock Haven a state owned school and thus public property? Which means preemption should apply.

Eliminating any argument about whether or not this, or any university, is public or private, let us assume that they all are. Assuming that they all are, the above referenced statute clearly would not apply to them, as the entities that it does apply to are quite clearly spelled out within the statute itself, and a state owned property is not among those entities:

No county, municipality or township may in any manner regulate the lawful ownership, possession, transfer or transportation of firearms, ammunition or ammunition components when carried or transported for purposes not prohibited by the laws of this Commonwealth.

What this clearly states, is that in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, no COUNTY, MUNICIPALITY, or TOWNSHIP, may make a law, rule, code, statute, or any other thing that makes the possession, ownership, transfer, or transportation of firearms, ammunition, or ammunition components, illegal in any way, shape, or form, as long as these items or actions are not prohibited by state law. The statute is designed to invest the power to make such laws solely within the state legislature, in order to eliminate a hodgepodge of possible laws all across the state that would make it virtually impossible for a firearm owner to navigate. It does not apply to state owned anything.

The whole sub-discussion about public vs. private property is moot, unless you are discussing property held by a county, municipality, or township.

To summarize, the bottom line answer to one of the basic questions in this thread is that preemption does not apply to state owned entities, which means that if a university is state owned, it can prohibit firearms, and if it is privately owned, it can prohibit firearms. That being said, unless there is a statute(and there is not one that I know of) that says it is illegal to possess a firearm on a university's property, state owned or privately owned, it becomes a trespassing issue, just like any private property situation.

************************************************** ********

Now onto Jcabin's posts:

General rule of thumb is to CC on ALL school property k-12 and university.
Unless YOU want to be the one to test the law or test university policy, in court. It will be expensive.

This is close to being an infractable post. Intentionally, or not, what you have done here is advise the masses to commit a crime. CARRY ON SCHOOL PROPERTY, AS DEFINED UNDER 912, IS ALWAYS A CRIME. I will say it again, because it bears repeating, CARRY ON SCHOOL PROPERTY, AS DEFINED UNDER 912, IS ALWAYS A CRIME.

18 Pa.C.S. § 912: Possession of weapon on school property
(a) Definition.--Notwithstanding the definition of "weapon" in section 907 (relating to possessing instruments of crime), "weapon" for purposes of this section shall include but not be limited to any knife, cutting instrument, cutting tool, nunchuck stick, firearm, shotgun, rifle and any other tool, instrument or implement capable of inflicting serious bodily injury.
(b) Offense defined.--A person commits a misdemeanor of the first degree if he possesses a weapon in the buildings of, on the grounds of, or in any conveyance providing transportation to or from any elementary or secondary publicly-funded educational institution, any elementary or secondary private school licensed by the Department of Education or any elementary or secondary parochial school.
(c) Defense.--It shall be a defense that the weapon is possessed and used in conjunction with a lawful supervised school activity or course or is possessed for other lawful purpose.

There is a much discussed defense written into this statute, but it is just that, a defense. It is not an exemption from arrest. It is not an exception that you can prove you are covered by to prevent arrest. It is a defense, that if proven, may prevent prosecution or conviction. The defense has not even been clearly tested in court as applying to LTCF holders or those possessing arms for self defense as a lawful purpose.

To summarize, if you conceal carry "on ALL school property k-12", as Jcabin suggests is the general rule of thumb, you are committing a crime. While you may, or may not, be covered by the written in defense, you are still committing an arrestable crime.
************************************************** ******

No. You can remain there peacefully, assert your right, and allow them to arrest you without resisting. Once you are charged, you can battle it out in court.

WTF kind of post is this? You are suggesting that someone commit defiant trespassing, get arrested, and then battle it out in court? Under what premise, that preemption applies to someplace it clearly does not, so one may feel safe in getting arrested for trespassing, go to court, and expect that the trespassing charge will be thrown out because the place had no right to consider your refusing to leave as trespassing because it was due to you carrying a firearm? I can not even imagine how someone who has been here as long as you have, has been involved in as many discussions on the trespass issue as you have, has supposedly learned so much about firearm laws in this Commonwealth here as you have, could even get his fingers to type the kind of post I just quoted above. It is absolutely ponderous.

This is where the whole thing starts from. You might lose for trespassing.
Then you could argue you rights were violated by an agency that takes a significant possibly, a significant majority of its money from the state.
Thus making it public property.

No, there really is no "might" involved here, in the sense that you mean it. You will almost certainly "lose for trespassing". You could argue that your rights were violated by beings that live behind one of Jupiter's moons as well, it doesn't mean that there is a legal basis for that argument.

Post offices are federal property and court houses are state/federal property.

A university that receives millions a year in funding from the state, well its pretty debatable. I don't think it's a loss. I think you need a damn good lawyer and alot of money.

Court houses can be state/federal property, but they can also be county/municipal property. Once again, it does not matter, even a little, if a university is public property, preemption simply does not apply. Whether or not you think it is a loss, the fact of the matter is that it is a loss.

I don't believe I said anything about suing for damages. That was someone else.

I'm talking about establishing state funded schools as public ground, where the UFA still stands. Thus forcing state funded schools to allow the legal carrying of firearms.

The UFA has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not some place is public ground. The section of the UFA that deals with preemption has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not an entity takes state funds, or whether that entity is public. It defines what entities may not make things related to firearms illegal, and it defines them very clearly as counties, municipalities, and townships. The state has declared that firearms may not be carried in court houses, which happen to be public property, with quite a few being owned by counties, municipalities, and townships, but it is still illegal to carry there. How does the UFA stand on that public ground? Oh wait, the UFA itself is where those places are defined as being prohibited...




I do not know what possessed you to post this stuff, but please stop.

[jcabin]

Damn. I don't know why I posted any of that.

I guess I was trying to find a way through the situation and attempted to do so in a questionable manner. Thanks for calling me out and correcting me.

I was trying to see if I could apply the UFA such an establishment. I guess it's the same way a police station works, that they can create their own rules about carrying into the building, even if the land/building is owned by the municipality/state. I really don't know what the hell I was thinking.

[headcase]

Damn. I don't know why I posted any of that.

I guess I was trying to find a way through the situation and attempted to do so in a questionable manner. Thanks for calling me out and correcting me.

I was trying to see if I could apply the UFA such an establishment. I guess it's the same way a police station works, that they can create their own rules about carrying into the building, even if the land/building is owned by the municipality/state. I really don't know what the hell I was thinking.

A.) I don't know that a police station has any such power on the county/municipality/township level.

B.) You are welcome sir.

[mjf]

A.) I don't know that a police station has any such power on the county/municipality/township level.

B.) You are welcome sir.

A police station sure could prohibit weapons, if they detain people there.....

§ 5122. Weapons or implements for escape.
(a) Offenses defined.--
(1) A person commits a misdemeanor of the first degree
if he unlawfully introduces within a detention facility,
correctional institution or mental hospital, or unlawfully
provides an inmate thereof with any weapon, tool, implement,
or other thing which may be used for escape.
(2) An inmate commits a misdemeanor of the first degree
if he unlawfully procures, makes or otherwise provides
himself with, or unlawfully has in his possession or under
his control, any weapon, tool, implement or other thing which
may be used for escape.
(3) (Deleted by amendment).
(b) Definitions.--
(1) As used in this section, the word "unlawfully" means
surreptitiously or contrary to law, regulation or order of
the detaining authority.
(2) As used in this section, the word "weapon" means any
implement readily capable of lethal use and shall include any
firearm, ammunition, knife, dagger, razor, other cutting or
stabbing implement or club, including any item which has been
modified or adopted so that it can be used as a firearm,
ammunition, knife, dagger, razor, other cutting or stabbing
implement, or club. The word "firearm" includes an unloaded
firearm and the unassembled components of a firearm.
(Dec. 10, 1974, P.L.910, No.300, eff. imd.; Dec. 15, 1999,
P.L.915, No.59, eff. 60 days)

This has nothing do to with preemption though, sort of like the courthouse carry ban, or more closely related, the ban of you carrying your firearm into a county jail.

[headcase]

A police station sure could prohibit weapons, if they detain people there.....

Not to take this off topic, but I would imagine that:

A.) They would have to be labeled as "a detention facility", not just a police station, and;

B.) If you did not try to bring the firearm into any sort of "secure" area, I am not sure it applies to the definitions listed.

But that is just MHO on something I have not done any sort of deep research on. Thanks for bringing it up, as I have been in need of a new thing to delve into here

[mjf]

Not to take this off topic, but I would imagine that:

A.) They would have to be labeled as "a detention facility", not just a police station, and;

B.) If you did not try to bring the firearm into any sort of "secure" area, I am not sure it applies to the definitions listed.

But that is just MHO on something I have not done any sort of deep research on. Thanks for bringing it up, as I have been in need of a new thing to delve into here

A.) They would have to be labeled as "a detention facility", not just a police station, and;

A police station where someone is held in a cell is a "detention facility..." There's no other definition of "detention facility" to "subclass" it as anything else.

B.) If you did not try to bring the firearm into any sort of "secure" area, I am not sure it applies to the definitions listed.

What qualifies as the divider though? I'd imagine if you posted a sign that said, "DETENTION FACILITY--no weapons of any kind pursuant to section § 5122, of the Pennsylvania crimes code." and posted it on your door things could get interesting.