Explain the dos and donts of carrying in school zones please....

[LittleRedToyota]

But to cover his ass, the sheriff will probably revoke the license until there is a hearing or something.

it is really sad that we have gotten to a point in this country where the sheriff would not be afraid of exposing himself to legal ramifications by abritrarily revoking an LTCF without doing an appropriate investigation first.

he should be worried about exposing himself to criminal and civil procesution for official oppression. of course, he is not, because the reality is that government officials can engage in official oppression with almost complete impunity.

i'm not disagreeing with steve...i could definitely see a sheriff rationally concluding, given our current legal climate, that the best way to cover his ass is to just revoke the license and then let it be sorted out on appeal. but the legal climate should not be that way. rather, the legal climate should be such that the rational thought process would be "i better not revoke this guy's LTCF without doing a thorough investigation first out of fear of being procescuted for official oppression."

[Statkowski]

The following letter might be of interest:

Dear Mr. Statkowski:

Thank you for contacting me in regard to your interest in Commonwealth laws regarding firearms. I always appreciate the opportunity to respond to these questions and appreciate your continued interest in this matter.

In your letter, you had inquired about the meaning of the phrase "possessed for other lawful purpose" found in 18 Pa. C.S. § 912(c), relating to possession of weapon on school property. Specifically, you wondered if this language recognized a Pennsylvania license to carry a firearm as a "lawful purpose."

Section 912, enacted in 1980, reads as follows:

"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."

According to House legal staff, at least two statewide courts have had the opportunity to address the issue of possession of firearms on school property by an individual who was licensed pursuant to 18 Pa. C.S. § 6109. Neither has issued an absolute rule.


Legal staff further indicated that in Commonwealth v. Heidler, the Pennsylvania Superior Court specifically refused to answer the question of whether an individual with a license to carry a firearm possessed such firearm for a lawful purpose on school grounds. 741 A.2d 213, 217, fn 8 (1999), app. denied 758 A.2d 660 (Pa. 2000). In Bolden v. Chartiers Valley School District, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania noted that, “(w)e need not address Bolden's argument that because his gun was registered his conduct falls within the exception to Section 912 which states that no crime is committed if Bolden possessed the gun with a lawful purpose. We note, however, that Bolden's argument ignores that the exception to Section 912 only allows possession of a firearm... for '[an] other lawful purpose' (meaning, for example, than an investigator, or a security guard, or other person who as part of his or her duties carries a firearm will not be charged with a crime...)." 869 A.2d 1134, 1139, fn 7 (2005).

The decision in Bolden, in particular the examples provided by the court in footnote 7, should give pause to an individual licensed under 18 Pa. C.S. § 6109. Although there is no iron-clad rule, in neither case did the court consider a license as a defense to a violation of the Crimes Code language concerning possession of weapons on school property. Until a definitive court ruling on this question, an individual would be in jeopardy of prosecution. It is worth noting that the penalty for a conviction under 18 Pa. C.S § 912 would be a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable by up to 5 years imprisonment and a fine of up to $10,000.

It is hoped that this information is useful. If I can be of further assistance on this or other legislative matters, please do not hesitate to contact my office.

Sincerely,

Sam Smith
STATE REPRESENTATIVE
66th Legislative District

[LittleRedToyota]

thanks for getting and sharing that information, statkowski.

the exception to Section 912 only allows possession of a firearm... for '[an] other lawful purpose' (meaning, for example, than an investigator, or a security guard, or other person who as part of his or her duties carries a firearm will not be charged with a crime...)."

WTF??

so now the courts are redefining "lawful" to mean "official".

i think i'm going to write a book called "the supreme court thesarus"

any registry = complete registry
not infringe = not completely obliterate
not question = ask questions
destroy = keep forever
lawful = official

lawful does not equal official. self-defense, while not an offical purpose, most certainly is "[an] other lawful purpose".

AAAARRRRRRGGGGGGHHHHHHH

[Steve in PA]

All he did is dance around the issue, typical politician.....no matter how pro 2A he might claim to be.

There is no exception that means "official" as in PI, security guard, etc. Ask him exactly where the explaination of this "exception" is.

It is his opinion....or rather the opinion of the person who wrote the memo for him that "lawful purpose" only means those persons whos job requires the carry of a weapon. Oh really??? Since when?

In other words, he's stating the person ccw's is quilty....and has to prove his innocence.

[Thekatar]

If you carry it concealed...

...well, there you go.

[LittleRedToyota]

It is his opinion....or rather the opinion of the person who wrote the memo for him that "lawful purpose" only means those persons whos job requires the carry of a weapon. Oh really??? Since when?

i think that portion was actually a quoting a footnote from the court opinion. so, it was the opinion of the court--although they declined to actually rule on the issue. that's the scary and ridiculous part about it.

there is absolutely no way to justify that opinion without redefining the meaning of the word "lawful" to be "official".

disgusting.

[Steve in PA]

I'd love to read the case where they claim "for other lawful purpose" means someone in a professional capacity. I very seriously doubt they made that ruling because if they did, 912 would have been re-written or editted to make that clarification.

[Penguini66]

We note, however, that Bolden's argument ignores that the exception to Section 912 only allows possession of a firearm... for '[an] other lawful purpose' (meaning, for example, than an investigator, or a security guard, or other person who as part of his or her duties carries a firearm will not be charged with a crime...)."

If it is part of my duty to protect myself and my family, then it is a lawful purpose for me to carry a firearm. The government is not the only entity that can assign a "duty". My beliefs can assign a duty.

Now if that said "official duty" it would be a whole nother ball of wax. Still kind of hairy territory.

[LittleRedToyota]

I'd love to read the case where they claim "for other lawful purpose" means someone in a professional capacity. I very seriously doubt they made that ruling because if they did, 912 would have been re-written or editted to make that clarification.

i'd like to read the whole case, too, but the relevant part was quoted in the letter statkowski posted. the case was "Bolden v. Chartiers Valley School District".

unless i am misreading the letter (i hope i am, but i don't think so), the court did not officially address the issue, but did make that footnote stating:

We note, however, that Bolden's argument ignores that the exception to Section 912 only allows possession of a firearm... for '[an] other lawful purpose' (meaning, for example, than an investigator, or a security guard, or other person who as part of his or her duties carries a firearm will not be charged with a crime...)." 869 A.2d 1134, 1139, fn 7 (2005)

i'm as flabbergasted as you, but it does seem that the court did make that statement.

i'm not sure it really means anything since the court officially declined to rule on that issue...maybe rule can explain to us why the would officially decline to rule on the issue, but then offer an opinion on the issue...and does that opinion actually mean anything in future cases??

[TaePo]

We must ask ourselves (and find a solution for) why the courts would not want to make a definitive ruling.

By keeping the interpretation of the law ambiguous, they can maintain a defacto gun control measure by assuring the citizens are too confused and afraid of prosecution to exercise their right. Thus, they control the majority without violating the "shall not be questioned" part of the Constitution (Pa.). This is why the Federal "shall not be infringed" clause is much more powerful.

Somehow, we need to be able to force the issue without putting someone's life or liberties/rights in jeopardy.