Man arrested for having gun on school property

[unloved]

Did you or didn't you see the question mark after each statement.

This is what was stupid. If he didn't mention it to the student he probably wouldn't be in this predicament.

No question mark.

Regardless he shouldn’t have had it on school grounds.

No question mark.

Which means I am admitting not knowing the exact law.

Having no knowledge of the relevant law means that you are not knowledgeable enough to engage in meaningful discussion of this matter, exactly as I said.

So read before you slam me.

I didn't "slam" you, I simply made a statement of fact. I'm blunt, and direct, in my speech, and prose. I make no apologies for that. I read, and understood, your post completely. Hence my response.

[GunLawyer001]

. . .
As unloved mentioned, the "other lawful purpose" isn't anything specific; it's a clause in the law which is an affirmative defense for carrying on school property. In this case (correct me if I'm wrong GL), it was found that having a PA LTCF was indeed an "other lawful purpose", and as such Mr. Anfuso committed no crime by legally carrying his weapon on school property.
. . .

Just to clarify, possessing the license isn't a lawful purpose, but it prevents his possession of a firearm in his car or concealed on or about his person from being "unlawful".

Any purpose that's not "unlawful" must be "lawful". Possession for self-defense, or for target shooting, or because you want to show someone your new gun, or for use as a paperweight...these are all "lawful" even if some are silly. Judges and juries should accept any defense that's uncontradicted, unless the DA can show that the purpose was unlawful.

In practice, they probably won't. But that's the way the statute is written.

[ChamberedRound]

I didn't "slam" you, I simply made a statement of fact. I'm blunt, and direct, in my speech, and prose. I make no apologies for that. I read, and understood, your post completely. Hence my response.

I was also pretty direct in my last post regarding staying on topic, and not continuing down this road. Warning issued, next will be a trolling infraction.

Just to clarify, possessing the license isn't a lawful purpose, but it prevents his possession of a firearm in his car or concealed on or about his person from being "unlawful".

Any purpose that's not "unlawful" must be "lawful". Possession for self-defense, or for target shooting, or because you want to show someone your new gun, or for use as a paperweight...these are all "lawful" even if some are silly. Judges and juries should accept any defense that's uncontradicted, unless the DA can show that the purpose was unlawful.

In practice, they probably won't. But that's the way the statute is written.

GL, thanks very much for the clarification.

This folks, is why lawyers do perform a valuable service; many of these nuances in how the law is interpreted have been around since the founding of our nation, and having professionals that are experienced at deciphering them is important.

[Gary737]

.....This folks, is why lawyers do perform a valuable service; many of these nuances in how the law is interpreted have been around since the founding of our nation, and having professionals that are experienced at deciphering them is important.

While lawyers do perform a service, and I'm not slamming lawyers, I find that it is a shame that the laws aren't written better so there is nothing left for "interpretation". That way, we ordinary folks can read a law and know what it means.

Should the "law of the land", the U.S. Constitution 2nd amendment be interpreted or deciphered by our Congressmen and Senators? Many of who are lawyers and have differing views on what the 2nd amendment is about.

[ChamberedRound]

While lawyers do perform a service, and I'm not slamming lawyers, I find that it is a shame that the laws aren't written better so there is nothing left for "interpretation". That way, we ordinary folks can read a law and know what it means.

Should the "law of the land", the U.S. Constitution 2nd amendment be interpreted or deciphered by our Congressmen and Senators? Many of who are lawyers and have differing views on what the 2nd amendment is about.

That's kinda what we've been trying to do for the last 230+ years. Unfortunately life is relatively complex, and it's next to impossible to put on paper codes which cover every situation life can present.

However, I will agree that at times, it seems some (i.e. legislators who happen to be lawyers) look to make the law more complex than it should be in an attempt to promote "job security".