gun free school zone question...

[cigarmanpa]

you're only except from carrying within 1000' of a school if you have a LTCF from the state where the school is located. Is this correct?

[rscheckler]

you're only except from carrying within 1000' of a school if you have a LTCF from the state where the school is located. Is this correct?

Check this thread...

http://forum.pafoa.org/general-2/229...hool-zone.html

[LittleRedToyota]

that is the BATFE's position at least...and it is one possible rational reading of the statute.

[cigarmanpa]

thanks, that's what I thought. looks like the xd stays home today since i don't have my va non-res permit.

[tl_3237]

Here's the 2002 BATFE letter on the issue:

http://www.handgunlaw.us/documents/batf_school_zone.pdf

[KMAG]

Interesting, it is as if the authorization referenced by BATF in 18 U.S.C. § 922(q) was not ruled UNCONSTITUTIONAL in 1995 in the SCOTUS decision U.S. v. Lopez. 514 U.S. 549 (1995). In that case, the Court upheld a lower court determination that the GFSZA §922(q) was an unconstitutional attempt by Congress to expand its power under the Commerce Clause and voided Mr. Lopez' conviction for bringing a handgun on school property.

Now back to reality (don't ask law enforcement for a legal opinion - stick to asking BATF regarding firearm construction/import questions), in PA, you may not bring a handgun (firearm) onto school property per the PA statute at 18 Pa. C.S. § 912, which states the following:

§ 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, nun-
chuck 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.
(Oct. 16, 1980, P.L.978, No.167, eff. 60 days)

However, as Section 914(c) referenced, you may defend yourself from the charge if you demonstrate the firearm was present on school property for "other lawful purpose." What does this mean? I am unaware of a court ruling defining it. As it is not defined in the statute, the terms should be afforded its plain, natural, and common usage in the courts as a basic rule of statutory construction. 1 Pa. C.S. § 1903.

Thus, it seems Lopez will support the summary resolution of a federal criminal charge, but "other lawful purpose" will be need to be demonstrated to defend against a Commonwealth prosecution.

Of course, do not take any of the above as some sort of legal advice. You should contact an attorney so he/she may consider the specific facts in your situation so competent legal advice may be provided for you to rely upon.

IAAL (I Am A Lawyer)

[gnbrotz]

in PA, you may not bring a handgun (firearm) onto school property per the PA statute at 18 Pa. C.S. § 912, which states the following:

§ 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, nun-
chuck 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.
(Oct. 16, 1980, P.L.978, No.167, eff. 60 days)

However, as Section 914(c) referenced, you may defend yourself from the charge if you demonstrate the firearm was present on school property for "other lawful purpose." What does this mean? I am unaware of a court ruling defining it. As it is not defined in the statute, the terms should be afforded its plain, natural, and common usage in the courts as a basic rule of statutory construction. 1 Pa. C.S. § 1903.

Well, apparently it means that my 14-year old can handle a S.W.A.T. sniper rifle without he or those who provided it being arrested, because that just happened a couple of weeks ago on "Career Day" at his school.

[LittleRedToyota]

Interesting, it is as if the authorization referenced by BATF in 18 U.S.C. § 922(q) was not ruled UNCONSTITUTIONAL in 1995 in the SCOTUS decision U.S. v. Lopez. 514 U.S. 549 (1995). In that case, the Court upheld a lower court determination that the GFSZA §922(q) was an unconstitutional attempt by Congress to expand its power under the Commerce Clause and voided Mr. Lopez' conviction for bringing a handgun on school property.

you do know that congress added a few words (about it only applying to guns that moved in interstate commerce...which, of course, is pretty muchy all guns) and repassed it in 1995, though, right? and that the "new" version has not gone to SCOTUS?

However, as Section 914(c) referenced, you may defend yourself from the charge if you demonstrate the firearm was present on school property for "other lawful purpose." What does this mean? I am unaware of a court ruling defining it. As it is not defined in the statute, the terms should be afforded its plain, natural, and common usage in the courts as a basic rule of statutory construction. 1 Pa. C.S. § 1903.

in a footnote in dicta in Bolden v. Chartiers Valley School District a Commonwealth court judge redefined "legal" to mean "official". he also literally changed the word "other" to "[an]other" and interpreted it to mean a purpose other than just the "purpose" of carrying the gun in and of itself.

see: http://www.courts.state.pa.us/OpPost...04_3-10-05.pdf

not precedent, but that's what one could be up against in court.

Thus, it seems Lopez will support the summary resolution of a federal criminal charge

i think not likely since the charge would be under the new GFSZA and lopez was under the old. i believe there have been two GFSZA cases go to the circuit courts since the enactment of the new version and that one circuit ruled the new GFSZA unconstitutional, but the other ruled it constitutional. i'm not sure about that, though.

[KMAG]

Thank you for the info. I did not know §922(q) was re-written. Criminal law is not my "thing." Civil and administrative law has been my career since 1996, first with the DOJ/BOP and then with the Commonwealth.

I wonder how Congress amended the statute to make to fall within their authority if under the commerce clause? I would imagine the fatal failure would continue regardless what words were utilized if it lacked the authority for the law in the 1st place.

The ever present danger in these cases is judges making opinions then trying to support them with facts and law them rather than the other way around. SCOTUS recently had a glaring example of this in the 2008 Heller dissent. I imagine many judges would be eager to find the federal statute was constitutional under the commerce clause merely to keep firearms out of schools for non-LEO's.

[KMAG]

Well, apparently it means that my 14-year old can handle a S.W.A.T. sniper rifle without he or those who provided it being arrested, because that just happened a couple of weeks ago on "Career Day" at his school.

I concur under PA law. See: (c) Defense.--It shall be a defense that the weapon is possessed and used in conjunction with a lawful supervised
school activity. Your description seems to fall within this exception.

Note that some schools have a student code of conduct that may prohibit it - but it would be hard to imagine it being enforced under such circumstances.