Mike
Site Co-Founder
imported post
Shawn wrote:
Shawn wrote:
Regulations and statutes are both "laws."
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
PA's lawful purpose defense to carying on K-12 school grounds may get a test soon!
- Thread starter Mike
- Start date
imported post
As to the legality, or NOT, of carrying a firearm in the Post Office there is a very good article here: http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/Concealed-carry-in-a-post-office-may-lead-to-rude-awakening
It is rather long so I won't post it unless someone asks me to.
There was also a case last year with a conviction under the CFR that was upheld on appeal. http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2008_07_06-2008_07_12.shtml#1215449415
Again this is fairly long.
I don't care if you carry in the Post Office but you should know that you could be fined and spend some time in jail as a result.
Ken
As to the legality, or NOT, of carrying a firearm in the Post Office there is a very good article here: http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/Concealed-carry-in-a-post-office-may-lead-to-rude-awakening
It is rather long so I won't post it unless someone asks me to.
There was also a case last year with a conviction under the CFR that was upheld on appeal. http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2008_07_06-2008_07_12.shtml#1215449415
Again this is fairly long.
I don't care if you carry in the Post Office but you should know that you could be fined and spend some time in jail as a result.
Ken
imported post
wsearfoss wrote:
For God's sake, somebody needs to contact this guy. He's gonna plea....:banghead:
Continued till 9/14,9/15 or 9/16/2009; a more specific day & time to be provided by the DA's
office.
http://ujsportal.pacourts.us/DocketSheets/CPReport.aspx?matterID=201301928
wsearfoss wrote:
For God's sake, somebody needs to contact this guy. He's gonna plea....:banghead:
Continued till 9/14,9/15 or 9/16/2009; a more specific day & time to be provided by the DA's
office.
http://ujsportal.pacourts.us/DocketSheets/CPReport.aspx?matterID=201301928
david.ross
Regular Member
imported post
I recommending calling the public defender listed on the docket.
I recommending calling the public defender listed on the docket.
david.ross
Regular Member
imported post
I did call the public defender and spoke with her.
She won't discuss any details in the case over privacy matters.
She gave me her email, and I'll be forwarding her the information about the statute and information to the NRA-ILA. Perhaps the NRA might chip in, I'm not sure.
I'm not sure they've much of a chance without appealing to the higher courts, which would set precedence. Who knows where the case will go.
A case where a person is arrested for a POW. He attempts to give the "lawful purpose is self-defense" excuse and the judge denies such stating while it may be a conceivable lawful purpose, it's not common lawful purpose.
http://www.pacourts.us/OpPosting/Superior/out/a13032_09.pdf
I did call the public defender and spoke with her.
She won't discuss any details in the case over privacy matters.
She gave me her email, and I'll be forwarding her the information about the statute and information to the NRA-ILA. Perhaps the NRA might chip in, I'm not sure.
I'm not sure they've much of a chance without appealing to the higher courts, which would set precedence. Who knows where the case will go.
A case where a person is arrested for a POW. He attempts to give the "lawful purpose is self-defense" excuse and the judge denies such stating while it may be a conceivable lawful purpose, it's not common lawful purpose.
http://www.pacourts.us/OpPosting/Superior/out/a13032_09.pdf
turbodog
Regular Member
imported post
insane.kangaroo wrote:
I don't think a pistol can ever be considered as is being carried for any other concievable use BUT self-defense. By a law-abiding citizen that is. That would make it a "common" lawful purpose don't you think?
insane.kangaroo wrote:
While one can argue that a knife has other "concievable" uses besides self-defense,
I don't think a pistol can ever be considered as is being carried for any other concievable use BUT self-defense. By a law-abiding citizen that is. That would make it a "common" lawful purpose don't you think?
david.ross
Regular Member
imported post
Even so, there is no apparent case law.
I'm not sure of the specifics of the PA court system. So I'll just attempt to theorize how a case may go.
If the judge is willing to throw the case out, great. The judge will has to go by what the law says, so the judge may not throw the case. The guy is welcomed to file an execution of stay which the judge may approve. He can then go appeal to the courts and have the case heard by the court of common pleas(not sure which court he would appeal). From there precedent would be set there to the court of common pleas, which wouldn't be state level. If the judge at the court of common pleas say guilty then he can appeal to the commonwealth court of Pennsylvania which would be state wide.
I'd hope for the best, though what I'd really love is the court to come sit in the commonwealth court so nobody would have any say in the matter ever again when being carried for self-defense.
Even so, there is no apparent case law.
I'm not sure of the specifics of the PA court system. So I'll just attempt to theorize how a case may go.
If the judge is willing to throw the case out, great. The judge will has to go by what the law says, so the judge may not throw the case. The guy is welcomed to file an execution of stay which the judge may approve. He can then go appeal to the courts and have the case heard by the court of common pleas(not sure which court he would appeal). From there precedent would be set there to the court of common pleas, which wouldn't be state level. If the judge at the court of common pleas say guilty then he can appeal to the commonwealth court of Pennsylvania which would be state wide.
I'd hope for the best, though what I'd really love is the court to come sit in the commonwealth court so nobody would have any say in the matter ever again when being carried for self-defense.
Swampbeast
Regular Member
imported post
Mike wrote:
Mike wrote:
Thats funny Mike, and although I'm not getting my hopes up, I do hope that they can handle the lawful purpose exception! We need it!
Statkowski
Regular Member
imported post
For a firearm, it would bedifficult to make "self-defense" a not common lawful purpose since that's exactly the reason for issuance of the majority of all LTCFs in the Commonwealth.
copfalldown
New member
imported post
FYI... He is not going to plea. January 7th 2010 in Union County, Lewisburg, PA.
Just a side note... I don't understand why it's gone this far, but I can't help wondering if someone isn't afraid of the defendant. It almost seems personal. The defendant is a disabled combat veteran who has survived three deployments to Iraq. On the last he suffered the loss of his team and a leg as well as 2 months in a coma. I know this isn't the issue but I know he would greatly appreciate the support of Veterans and NRA members until this is finally decided.
The NRA-ILA will be representing him.
FYI... He is not going to plea. January 7th 2010 in Union County, Lewisburg, PA.
Just a side note... I don't understand why it's gone this far, but I can't help wondering if someone isn't afraid of the defendant. It almost seems personal. The defendant is a disabled combat veteran who has survived three deployments to Iraq. On the last he suffered the loss of his team and a leg as well as 2 months in a coma. I know this isn't the issue but I know he would greatly appreciate the support of Veterans and NRA members until this is finally decided.
The NRA-ILA will be representing him.
Statkowski
Regular Member
imported post
It's not that they're afraid of the defendent, but quite possibly more afraid of finding out what "other lawful purposes" actually means.
It's not that they're afraid of the defendent, but quite possibly more afraid of finding out what "other lawful purposes" actually means.