Primary & Secondary School Weapons Ban to be Reconsidered

Gavel in Court

Good news from Firearms Attorney Joshua Prince regarding the Pennsylvania Superior Court case that ruled “other lawful purposes” language in the Pennsylvania school weapons ban didn’t include legally carrying a firearm, but instead meant that lunch ladies could have knives in the kitchen, or other such school related activity:

After the decision, Mr. Goslin contacted me and we, pro-bono, filed a Motion for Reconsideration/Reargument en banc, wherein, inter alia, we argued that the Superior Court should permit new briefs to be filed and oral argument, after vacating the court’s July 6, 2016 decision. Today, the Superior Court GRANTED the motion, withdrew the July 6, 2016 decisions and scheduled re-briefing and argument.

That’s definitely good news. Hopefully we can get a better result on appeal. If this case loses, it would technically be a serious violation to drop your kid off at school with a firearm in the vehicle, or even to turn around in a school parking lot on the way to the range. What about a sidewalk that transits school property? The “other lawful purposes” was what prevents this law from applying to ordinary people, rather than only to people who don’t have lawful intent.

Related posts (automatically generated):

  1. Important Ruling From PA Superior Court
  2. Superior Court Rules No Weapons on School Property
  3. A Test Case on School Carry?

8 thoughts on “Primary & Secondary School Weapons Ban to be Reconsidered”

  1. Great news. Hopefully they won’t follow their silly decision where they basically said “lawful purposes” meant nothing at all

  2. It’s part of a firearms law and they saw it doesn’t mean firearms????
    Who comes up with these stupid ideas?

    1. The school weapons law is very broad. Technically it could include a screwdriver. It’s only the exception for “other lawful purposes” that keep it from turning a lot of people into felons.

    1. Is that the right link? That’s a three year old case, which is totally different.

        1. True. THIS case in the post is talking about weapons on school grounds(Commonwealth v. Goslin). THAT case is talking about prohibitions to owning guns based on mental status (re: Keyes).

          Two completely different cases.

          Unless you have some other point you are making. Maybe about how Prince has lost before? Guess what, at least he is trying, and the courts will not always be smart. The same argument that Kline is making is the same one the NRA made on Heller and McDonald. That worked out just fine.

          As a side note, I trust Prince much more than Kline (GunLawyer01). He’d rather not fight for anything. Prince has done more for gun rights than Kline by a long shot.

    2. They did some minor pro bono work, and it panned out. Now they’re asking us, as residents of the commonwealth to fund the actual legal proceedings.

      Why do you think they should do everything for free?

Comments are closed.