School board member won't be charged for taking gun to school construction site

[kcr121]

Posted at PhillyBurbs.com:

Bucks County District Attorney Dave Heckler said his office won't file criminal charges against Council Rock school board member Jerold Grupp for taking a handgun to Holland Elementary School in Northampton about two weeks ago.

Heckler said his office was asked to investigate the matter by Northampton police. He said no criminal charges are warranted because Grupp was visiting the school to look over a construction project, the school district was still on summer vacation and there no students there at the time.

Also, Grupp is licensed to carry the gun, Heckler added.

"My understanding is the fellow visited a school that was under construction during the summer and was coming straight from a firing range," said Heckler. "His purpose for being there was consistent with his duties as a school board member and the only people present were construction workers and perhaps, some adult school staff. He was duly licensed to carry firearms concealed on his person and was doing so."

(continued at the link)

[twency]

... Heckler said his office was asked to investigate the matter by Northampton police. ...

There's an important bit of info missing from that story: how did the matter come to the attention of the Northampton police?

In any case, he apparently has a LTCF so the GFSZA doesn't apply, and apparently he had an "other lawful purpose" for the purpose of PA law so this should be a non-issue anyway.

[Sandcut]

"My understanding is the fellow visited a school that was under construction during the summer and was coming straight from a firing range," said Heckler. "His purpose for being there was consistent with his duties as a school board member and the only people present were construction workers and perhaps, some adult school staff. He was duly licensed to carry firearms concealed on his person and was doing so."

Say it! SAAAAAAAAY IIIIITTTTTTT! Why can't you just say it?

He wasn't arrested because what he did was not an unlawful act. He was licensed to carry and was carrying for "other lawful purpose." It shouldn't matter if the site was under construction or if class was in session. It's still a lawful activity.

The way the DA describes it in the article it sounds like the guy was let go for personal or political reasons. Ironically, people will raise less hell about this than they would if the DA just stated the truth.

[ChamberedRound]

Say it! SAAAAAAAAY IIIIITTTTTTT! Why can't you just say it?

He wasn't arrested because what he did was not an unlawful act. He was licensed to carry and was carrying for "other lawful purpose." It shouldn't matter if the site was under construction or if class was in session. It's still a lawful activity.

The way the DA describes it in the article it sounds like the guy was let go for personal or political reasons. Ironically, people will raise less hell about this than they would if the DA just stated the truth.

While I agree what he was doing was lawful, I do believe his not being charged was for political reasons. If this were any other parent with a valid LTCF, they would've played the game of "legal monetary attrition" with that person, and made them spend thousands to defend themselves.

[Gun]

Heckler said his decision might have been different if school had been in session when the incident occurred.
"In that case, the analysis would be different but under these circumstances, the fact he had a gun is somewhat incidental because he's licensed to carry it anywhere in the commonwealth," Heckler said.

Anywhere?!!?

[Falcon118]

Anywhere?!!?

Their knowledge of the laws in PA are skin deep at best. Not good to take anything they say seriously.

[GunLawyer001]

"Heckler said his decision might have been different if school had been in session when the incident occurred."

There is absolutely nothing in the statute that would make that a factor. If you carry a gun for an unlawful purpose onto school property, then it makes no difference whether it's during Christmas break, middle of August, or noon on a school day with a thousand rug rats swarming around you.

A lawful purpose is a lawful purpose, and hinting that the DA used prosecutorial discretion to excuse what might arguably have been a violation is absurd.

If you are licensed, then it's not unlawful to carry a firearm for self-defense, or for any other lawful purpose.

This is why I suggest that the statute needs to be re-written, so I don't have to defend another citizen who didn't commit any crime, who merely lawfully possessed a firearm on school property while licensed to do so, whether attending a game or walking her dog or pulling her car in to pick up her kids. "Self defense" is a lawful purpose, it's a Constitutional purpose, it's a fundamental right and not a loophole.

Rewrite the statute, make proof of an unlawful purpose an element of the offense. Otherwise, it's like allowing criminal prosecution of every person who drives a car, placing the burden on them to prove that they didn't plan to kill anyone.

[Bill077]

...
Rewrite the statute, make proof of an unlawful purpose an element of the offense. Otherwise, it's like allowing criminal prosecution of every person who drives a car, placing the burden on them to prove that they didn't plan to kill anyone.

I fear that if legislators rewrite the statute it won’t go our way. I would rather see a case make it to the Supreme Court of PA and have precedent set.

Not volunteering.....

[ruggerio]

"Heckler said his decision might have been different if school had been in session when the incident occurred."

There is absolutely nothing in the statute that would make that a factor. If you carry a gun for an unlawful purpose onto school property, then it makes no difference whether it's during Christmas break, middle of August, or noon on a school day with a thousand rug rats swarming around you.

A lawful purpose is a lawful purpose, and hinting that the DA used prosecutorial discretion to excuse what might arguably have been a violation is absurd.

If you are licensed, then it's not unlawful to carry a firearm for self-defense, or for any other lawful purpose.

This is why I suggest that the statute needs to be re-written, so I don't have to defend another citizen who didn't commit any crime, who merely lawfully possessed a firearm on school property while licensed to do so, whether attending a game or walking her dog or pulling her car in to pick up her kids. "Self defense" is a lawful purpose, it's a Constitutional purpose, it's a fundamental right and not a loophole.

Rewrite the statute, make proof of an unlawful purpose an element of the offense. Otherwise, it's like allowing criminal prosecution of every person who drives a car, placing the burden on them to prove that they didn't plan to kill anyone.

not to change the subject but this is the question i have with philly's law regarding knives.

self defense IS a lawful reason to carry a knife and it says prohibited for unlawful purposes

how wrong ,if at all, am i in this thinking? what is the difference between the firearm law and " other offensive weapons" ?

[GunLawyer001]

not to change the subject but this is the question i have with philly's law regarding knives.

self defense IS a lawful reason to carry a knife and it says prohibited for unlawful purposes

how wrong ,if at all, am i in this thinking? what is the difference between the firearm law and " other offensive weapons" ?

The Philly ordinance says nothing about self-defense:

§10-820. Cutting Weapons in Public Places.

(1) Definition.

Cutting Weapon. Any knife or other cutting instrument which can be used as a weapon that has a cutting edge similar to that of a knife. No tool or instrument commonly or ordinarily used in a trade, profession or calling shall be considered a cutting weapon while actually being used in the active exercise of that trade, profession or calling.

(2) Prohibited Conduct. No person shall use or possess any cutting weapon upon the public streets or upon any public property at any time.

(3) Penalty. The penalty for violation of this section shall be a fine of not less than three hundred (300) dollars and imprisonment of not less than ninety days.