"encounter" with my disapatcher

[GunLawyer001]

. . . .
ADIVSORY NOTE: At the time of this update, there has been thus far no court cases interpreting "possessed for other lawful purpose" insofar as applied to those licensed under §6109, exempted under §6106(b), or open carrying on foot without the benefit of being licensed or exempted on school grounds. However, common sense would dictate that if "self defense" is a valid and lawful reason for purpose of obtaining a PA LTCF than it should also be a "lawful purpose" per this statute's exceptions.

I'm not aware of any appellate cases, but since I handled the Anfuso case, and there was no other defense offered, there has been at least one court case interpreting the "other lawful purpose" defense, in our favor.

To get to to appellate law, someone will have to lose at the trial court.

[ByblosHex]

Stupid client side java script that's inhibiting highlight so you can C&P. If you have No-Script set it to not allow scripts for their domain and you can highlight and then C&P.

ETA: Actually it appears as though they changed the highlight color to something that makes it appear as though it's not.

I have seen the scripts I've described before though, and that's what it seemed to be doing.

Yeah I could've figured out a way to copy and paste it if I really wanted to, but a site like OpenCarry.org really shouldn't go out of their way to make you go out of your way to share some of the information on the site. Seems counter-intuitive to me.

I just copied this from your link and pasted it here. Looks like maybe user error.

§ 912. Possession of weapon on school property.

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.
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.
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.

ADIVSORY NOTE: At the time of this update, there has been thus far no court cases interpreting "possessed for other lawful purpose" insofar as applied to those licensed under §6109, exempted under §6106(b), or open carrying on foot without the benefit of being licensed or exempted on school grounds. However, common sense would dictate that if "self defense" is a valid and lawful reason for purpose of obtaining a PA LTCF than it should also be a "lawful purpose" per this statute's exceptions.

...or maybe as Streaker69 said the selection color is invisible... of course it's always better to try and talk down to someone than try to understand their perspective. Especially on the interwebs.

]If you call an undefined definition of "lawful purpose" clear as day, you sir are much more confident in the legal system than I am.[/B]

What Gunlawyer saying being a part of the law was clear as day, at least to the casual reader. I have no confidence in the legal system whatsoever, but I can read. Lawful purpose, is lawful purpose, what else could it be?

[knight0334]

I'm not aware of any appellate cases, but since I handled the Anfuso case, and there was no other defense offered, there has been at least one court case interpreting the "other lawful purpose" defense, in our favor.

To get to to appellate law, someone will have to lose at the trial court.

Too bad you won.. lol

You shouldn't be so good at your job at times. lol

[GunLawyer001]

If you call an undefined definition of "lawful purpose" clear as day, you sir are much more confident in the legal system than I am.

It should be clear, but judges are capable of great mischief in their creative interpretations.

We know what a "purpose" is. And under our system, anything that's not prohibited is "lawful". So a "lawful purpose" should be "any purpose which is not unlawful".

But in dicta, at least some judges opined that courts should infer the word "similar" into the phrase "other lawful purpose", and limit "lawful purpose" to "school-related lawful purposes" and "work-related lawful purposes, such as licensed security guards and cops".

The problem with that, is that it's not a "gun" law, it applies to pretty much everything with a point, blade, hard surface, or a lot of mass. Anything that could crush, pierce, bruise or otherwise damage human flesh. So that tire iron in your trunk, parked on the school lot, must have a specific school-related purpose, or else you've committed a 1st degree misdemeanor. Your car as well, since cars kill 40,000 people per year and they clearly fall within the definition. If you used your car simply to get to school, but don't plan on using it in your Trigonometry class, then you don't fall within the suggested "narrow" interpretation, so please place your hands behind your back...

[pennsylvaniaboy]

It should be clear, but judges are capable of great mischief in their creative interpretations.

We know what a "purpose" is. And under our system, anything that's not prohibited is "lawful". So a "lawful purpose" should be "any purpose which is not unlawful".

But in dicta, at least some judges opined that courts should infer the word "similar" into the phrase "other lawful purpose", and limit "lawful purpose" to "school-related lawful purposes" and "work-related lawful purposes, such as licensed security guards and cops".

The problem with that, is that it's not a "gun" law, it applies to pretty much everything with a point, blade, hard surface, or a lot of mass. Anything that could crush, pierce, bruise or otherwise damage human flesh. So that tire iron in your trunk, parked on the school lot, must have a specific school-related purpose, or else you've committed a 1st degree misdemeanor. Your car as well, since cars kill 40,000 people per year and they clearly fall within the definition. If you used your car simply to get to school, but don't plan on using it in your Trigonometry class, then you don't fall within the suggested "narrow" interpretation, so please place your hands behind your back...

This is what I was trying to say. Depending on the Judge or prosecutor, you could have quite a fun time getting "self-defense" to stick as a lawful purpose.

[jerkin]

If you call an undefined definition of "lawful purpose" clear as day, you sir are much more confident in the legal system than I am.

§ 6111.4. Registration of firearms.
Notwithstanding any section of this chapter to the contrary,
nothing in this chapter shall be construed to allow any
government or law enforcement agency or any agent thereof to
create, maintain or operate any registry of firearm ownership
within this Commonwealth. For the purposes of this section only,
the term "firearm" shall include any weapon that is designed to
or may readily be converted to expel any projectile by the
action of an explosive or the frame or receiver of any such
weapon.

You mean like how the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decided that "any" actually means "complete"? If I remember correctly even the ATF said this was unlawful.

[kolonial72]

It should be clear, but judges are capable of great mischief in their creative interpretations.

We know what a "purpose" is. And under our system, anything that's not prohibited is "lawful". So a "lawful purpose" should be "any purpose which is not unlawful".

But in dicta, at least some judges opined that courts should infer the word "similar" into the phrase "other lawful purpose", and limit "lawful purpose" to "school-related lawful purposes" and "work-related lawful purposes, such as licensed security guards and cops".

The problem with that, is that it's not a "gun" law, it applies to pretty much everything with a point, blade, hard surface, or a lot of mass. Anything that could crush, pierce, bruise or otherwise damage human flesh. So that tire iron in your trunk, parked on the school lot, must have a specific school-related purpose, or else you've committed a 1st degree misdemeanor. Your car as well, since cars kill 40,000 people per year and they clearly fall within the definition. If you used your car simply to get to school, but don't plan on using it in your Trigonometry class, then you don't fall within the suggested "narrow" interpretation, so please place your hands behind your back...

GL, don't take this the wrong way, but when I hear the kinds of things lawyers come up with, it fucks with my head. I'm not sure if it's a necessary evil given our society's propensity to argue vehemently for or against things regardless of the correctness of the argument, or if lawyers just enjoy making shit up. (Disclaimer - not disagreeing with what you said, rather it amazes me that it has to be said. At any rate, thank you for saying it. <thumbsup>)

This is not intended to be an indictment of any lawyer or judge, but more of a comment on the system that makes statements like yours necessary. I absolutely hate using the common-sense argument, but it just makes common sense that a car used to go to school, and the tire iron in the car's trunk, are not illegal items unless they are used for illegal purposes. So the fact that someone has to actually point out kind of thing you said earlier hurts my brain. Why's it gotta be so complicated? WHY CAN'T WE ALL JUST GET ALONG?!?

But since the thread is about an adult needing to make the decision whether or not to bring a weapon onto school property for what seems to me a lawful (or not unlawful?) reason, I'll just say that my candy ass would probably not test the assertion that it should be okay. Perhaps I could work out the last vestiges of fear for my own well-being and that of my family, fear that should never have been planted and nurtured in the first place, and nut-up enough to do something like that. But that day is not today, and probably not tomorrow.

[gnbrotz]

But since the thread is about an adult needing to make the decision whether or not to bring a weapon onto school property for what seems to me a lawful (or not unlawful?) reason, I'll just say that my candy ass would probably not test the assertion that it should be okay. Perhaps I could work out the last vestiges of fear for my own well-being and that of my family, fear that should never have been planted and nurtured in the first place, and nut-up enough to do something like that. But that day is not today, and probably not tomorrow.

Do remember than one carries a firearm onto school grounds, there is no automatic detector that begins to blare an alarm or alert authorities. I understand the trepidation, and I'm certainly not yet at the point where I intend to open carry on school grounds, but I carry concealed there on almost every occasion I go there, the most recent being within the last week.

I'm sure lawfully carried firearms are present on school grounds all around this state every single day, though that in no way minimizes the potential results if someone is discovered and successfully prosecuted.

[kolonial72]

Do remember than one carries a firearm onto school grounds, there is no automatic detector that begins to blare an alarm or alert authorities. I understand the trepidation, and I'm certainly not yet at the point where I intend to open carry on school grounds, but I carry concealed there on almost every occasion I go there, the most recent being within the last week.

I'm sure lawfully carried firearms are present on school grounds all around this state every single day, though that in no way minimizes the potential results if someone is discovered and successfully prosecuted.

I hear what you're saying, and it makes sense. In my mind, though I did not explain, I was thinking specifically about OC. Regardless of how one is carrying, in the unlikely event that the weapon needs to be used, it will become immediately obvious to anyone standing around that someone has a gun on school property. At that point, there may or may not be legal ramifications, but at least a person carrying has a decent chance to live to face those ramifications, where a person not carrying may never get the chance. So point taken on the CC option.

[TheWolff]

...or maybe as Streaker69 said the selection color is invisible... of course it's always better to try and talk down to someone than try to understand their perspective. Especially on the interwebs.

You accused them of making information hard to copy, and spoke poorly of them for it. I was letting people know that I didn't have any problems. I don't see why you're getting defensive when you were the one that was wrong in the first place. It would be one thing if you said you couldn't cut and paste, but instead, you said they'd made it impossible and questioned their intentions. In IE and FF, the highlight color for me is blue, then I hit ctrl+c to copy. I didn't use any tricks. Maybe update your java.

The guys over there do a lot of work to maintain that site, and it has helped many people. Lots of people read this site, and I didn't anyone to be turned off to paopencarry because of an incorrect assertion.