AMGOA Staff
Pennsylvania


Posts: 1,427

Today, the Superior Court, en banc, issued its decision in Commonwealth v. Goslin, 1114 MDA 2015, regarding whether an individual is entitled to claim the defense of 'other lawful purpose' when carrying a weapon on school grounds.

The original devastating decision was issued by the Superior Court holding that one could not possess a weapon on school grounds, unless it was related to a school activity, Chief Counsel Joshua Prince contacted Mr. Goslin and offered to represent him in petitioning the Superior Court to reconsider his case, en banc, and permit re-briefing and oral argument. After filing the motion for reconsideration, the Superior Court vacated its prior decision, granted reconsideration, en banc, and permitted the parties to re-brief the matter and to argue the matter at oral argument. Thereafter, Chief Counsel Prince re-briefed the matter and attended oral argument.

Today, the Superior Court, en banc, without any dissenting opinions, filed its decision vacating the trial court's finding of guilt and declaring:

We disagree with the trial court's conclusion that the language of Section 912(c) is vague.

Rather, we conclude that, in order to ascertain the meaning of Section 912(c), we need not look beyond its plain language. The plain meaning of Section 912(c) provides two separate defenses: possessing and using a weapon on school property "in conjunction with a lawful supervised school activity" as well as possessing "for other lawful purpose."

https://blog.princelaw.com/2017/02/16/chief-counsel-prince-secures-monumental-decision-from-the-superior-court-en-banc-regarding-possession-of-weapons-on-school-property/