what are my limits with a shotgun?

[tl_3237]

Ok, so we then know the laws regarding k-12. Does having an LTCF also exempt someone from this long arm statute, like it does with handguns?

Not in PA. Under exemption 922(B)(ii) having an LTCF exempts you for 6102 Firearms (handgun, SBR, SBS) but, since PA does not issue licenses for longarm possession, an LTCF would not, IMO, qualify for an exemption with respect to longarms. An interesting argument could be made that an LTCF would qualify in Phila since an LTCF is required for longarms (18 Pa CSA 6108)!

Another question, what's the law regarding the 99.99% of the state that isn't school property. I don't think you need to have your long arm locked in a case or a lockable gun rack.

For the Federal statute (922(q)) you must meet one of the previously posted exemptions to possess within the 1000 foot buffer OUTSIDE the school property. You have to meet the Federal exemptions as well as an exemption of 18 Pa CSA 912 while ON school property.

Off the top of my head, other restrictive areas the average Joe cannot carry longarms:

LOADED in a vehicle (6106.1),
during emergency w/o LTCF (6107),
on public streets/property in Phila w/o LTCF (6108).

There are other obvious areas that firearms in general are prohibited (court, detention facilities, Federal facilities, posted private property, some state facilities, etc).

I'm sure that others can add to the list.

In non-restricted areas, longarms carry is legal and does not require locking.

[Feddog82]

LTCF is a license to carry firearms, respectively. In PA longguns such as shotguns and rifles are not considered "firearms", to my knowledge. So, your LTCF would not change this or make an acception.

Added--looks like someone beat me to it.

[Hawk]

IANAL, but I did a little research on this. From what I understand from searching the Internet, the Federal law regarding gun free school zones (18 U.S.C. § 922 ) has been fought in court and found unconstitutional (U.S. v. Lopez (1995)).

CONGRESS CANNOT BAN GUNS NEAR SCHOOLS

A divided U.S. Supreme Court ruled in U.S. v. Lopez, that Congress exceeded its authority when it enacted the Gun-Free School Zones Act. The law passed in 1990, forbids possession of a firearm within 1,000 feet of a school. (18 U.S.C. ß922(q)(1)(A).)
Background: A 12th grade student in San Antonio, Texas was arrested for carrying a concealed weapon, and was charged under Texas law with possession of a firearm on school premises. The day after his arrest the state charges were dismissed, and he was charged under the federal Gun-Free School Zones Act. He was convicted and sentenced to six months in jail.
Lopez appealed and argued that his conviction was invalid because Congress exceeded its powers to legislate under the Commerce Clause. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit agreed and reversed the conviction. The Fifth Circuit reasoned that the Act was an unauthorized exercise of power by Congress because there was no federal property or interstate commerce involved.
The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Fifth Circuit's decision and said that "the possession of a gun in a local school zone is in no sense an economic activity" that might have an effect on interstate commerce. The Court said that to accept the view that Congress may regulate all activities that might lead to violent crime would"convert congressional authority under the Commerce Clause to a general police power of the sort retained by the States."
The Supreme Court's decision does not affect criminal laws passed in more than 40 states outlawing possession of firearms on or near school grounds. In California, Penal Code section 626.9, enacted during the 1994 legislative session bans possession of a gun within 1,000 feet of a school.
U.S. v. Lopez (1995) ____U.S. ___
[Vol. 1, No. 11 - May 1995, CELR]


When Federal law is not applicable, then the state law takes over.
In PA, the law governing possession of a weapon "on school property" states:

§ 912. Possession of weapon on school property.

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.

I'm not advocating trying the Federal law, but this is food for thought and further research.

[tl_3237]

IANAL, but I did a little research on this. From what I understand from searching the Internet, the Federal law regarding gun free school zones (18 U.S.C. § 922 ) has been fought in court and found unconstitutional (U.S. v. Lopez (1995)).

You are quite correct that SCOTUS found the GFSZA of 1990 unconstitutional because it failed to show a nexus to Federal authority. The current GFSZA of 1995, penned by our great friend Latenburg (NJ), was then hastily passed with the preface shown in 922(q)(1) supposedly demonstrating an interstate commerce connection.

If you ever want to see how the interstate commerce clause is being abused and expanded infinitely, you have no better example than this:

18 USC 922(q)
(1) The Congress finds and declares that—

(A) crime, particularly crime involving drugs and guns, is a pervasive, nationwide problem;
(B) crime at the local level is exacerbated by the interstate movement of drugs, guns, and criminal gangs;
(C) firearms and ammunition move easily in interstate commerce and have been found in increasing numbers in and around schools, as documented in numerous hearings in both the Committee on the Judiciary [3] the House of Representatives and the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate;
(D) in fact, even before the sale of a firearm, the gun, its component parts, ammunition, and the raw materials from which they are made have considerably moved in interstate commerce;
(E) while criminals freely move from State to State, ordinary citizens and foreign visitors may fear to travel to or through certain parts of the country due to concern about violent crime and gun violence, and parents may decline to send their children to school for the same reason;
(F) the occurrence of violent crime in school zones has resulted in a decline in the quality of education in our country;
(G) this decline in the quality of education has an adverse impact on interstate commerce and the foreign commerce of the United States;
(H) States, localities, and school systems find it almost impossible to handle gun-related crime by themselves—even States, localities, and school systems that have made strong efforts to prevent, detect, and punish gun-related crime find their efforts unavailing due in part to the failure or inability of other States or localities to take strong measures; and
(I) the Congress has the power, under the interstate commerce clause and other provisions of the Constitution, to enact measures to ensure the integrity and safety of the Nation’s schools by enactment of this subsection.

To the best of my knowledge the GFSZA of 1995 has never been challenged. I'm confident if it ever was it also would go down in flames like it predecessor. AS of now, however, its the law of the land.

[Hawk]

You are quite correct that SCOTUS found the GFSZA of 1990 unconstitutional because it failed to show a nexus to Federal authority. The current GFSZA of 1995, penned by our great friend Latenburg (NJ), was then hastily passed with the preface shown in 922(q)(1) supposedly demonstrating an interstate commerce connection.

If you ever want to see how the interstate commerce clause is being abused and expanded infinitely, you have no better example than this:



To the best of my knowledge the GFSZA of 1995 has never been challenged. I'm confident if it ever was it also would go down in flames like it predecessor. AS of now, however, its the law of the land.

Thanks for the update!