Carry on School Property Answered?

[Plain Ole Dan]

First, let me say "Thank You" to the founders of this forum. It has taught me a great deal.
After having my LTCF for 7+ years, I finally decided to contact my State Rep, Bod Godshall, and asked him if he could provide a definitive answer as to what "for lawful purpose" meant as it relates to carrying on school property.
Here is a scan of the letter he sent.
By the way, Rep Godshall is a great guy. NRA Lifer and life-long hunter and always responded to all of my questions and comments quickly. He's up for re-election in Nov.
Anyway, he is like the rest of us. He could only find one vague precedent as you will see.
Hope this helps someone.
Sorry for the thumbnails. The print was too small to shrink it much more.

[Statkowski]

Same answer as my rep's answer. However, and this is a big however, no LTCF holder has ever been prosecuted for carrying on school grounds. Ejected, yes, but prosecuted, no.

Is it because the D.A. knows what "other lawful purposes" means?
Is it because the D.A. doesn't want to find out what "other lawful purposes" means?

Your pick.

[gnbrotz]

Same answer as my rep's answer. However, and this is a big however, no LTCF holder has ever been prosecuted for carrying on school grounds. Ejected, yes, but prosecuted, no.

Correction: No LTCF holder has ever had their conviction upheld for carrying on school grounds when no other criminal activity occured.

See Commonwealth v. Heidler. In that case, the conviction was overturned based on "constructive possession", not "lawful purpose".

[knight0334]

Same answer as my rep's answer. However, and this is a big however, no LTCF holder has ever been prosecuted for carrying on school grounds. Ejected, yes, but prosecuted, no.

Is it because the D.A. knows what "other lawful purposes" means?
Is it because the D.A. doesn't want to find out what "other lawful purposes" means?

Your pick.

Or they dont want the results of an unconstitutionally vague ruling too. ...which could easily happen since there isn't a definition within the law of "other lawful purposes".

[sluggie24]

My 9 year old son can figure out what "other lawful purpose" is supposed to mean. I would find it bordering on illegality if any DA or judge could twist those 3 words around and say that a Constitutionally protected right is not a lawful purpose. If they do that then there is no laws of theirs we ever need obey as they are just making things up as they go IMHO.

[G10mm]

Same answer as my rep's answer. However, and this is a big however, no LTCF holder has ever been prosecuted for carrying on school grounds. Ejected, yes, but prosecuted, no.

Is it because the D.A. knows what "other lawful purposes" means?
Is it because the D.A. doesn't want to find out what "other lawful purposes" means?

Your pick.

I sertontly don't wont to be the ginny pig on this one

[jofreder]

Here is the Case
http://www.courts.state.pa.us/OpPost...04_3-10-05.pdf

Lawful purpose says nothing about, nor is it even near, a statement that says if it is an investigator or firearms training.

There are two defenses the way I read it.

(c) Defense—It shall be a defense that the weapon

1. is pos*sessed and used in conjunction with a lawful supervised school activity or course

2. is possessed for other lawful purpose

[mjf]

Here is the Case
http://www.courts.state.pa.us/OpPost...04_3-10-05.pdf

Lawful purpose says nothing about, nor is it even near, a statement that says if it is an investigator or firearms training.

There are two defenses the way I read it.

(c) Defense—It shall be a defense that the weapon

1. is pos*sessed and used in conjunction with a lawful supervised school activity or course

2. is possessed for other lawful purpose

Right, but in theory that could be interpreted by the courts as anything, and confined to "law enforcement personnel or persons authorized by the school district to carry a weapon." Until someone challenges prosecution in a high court using the "other lawful purpose" defense, we won't really know what it means.

[djturnz]

Ok, lets do just what Heller did. Get a bunch of money together, get the NRA, GOA, OCDO and whom ever we can and lets find a giny(?) pig to test it.



1 ...... 2 ...... 3 .. Not ME!

[tl_3237]

Or get the legislators to modify the statute to define the phrase and also overtly include an exception for LTCF.

Cheaper than suit.