If the firearm was carried ‘concealed’ how did it become know this individual was armed in the first place? Unfortunately none of this is mentioned in that almost fact free link.
Strangely enough, it’s possible to claim he was in the clear:
(c) 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. *
Licensed carry, especially when no school activity is going on nor students present, when en route from a gun range, can be interpreted as “other lawful purpose”.
Now, if the local prosecutors tend to charge any “normal” citizen who possesses a gun under the same circumstances, or if this school board member has called for zero tolerance on gun possession on school grounds, that’s a different story.
But as written, the article doesn’t give enough information to distinguish between hypocritical corruption and a prosecutor intelligently deciding not to waste the court’s time with a Mickey Mouse accusation that is arguably defensible, when no harm was intended, and the whole reason for the law was not even in play.
September 23rd, 2012 at 1:53 pm
If the firearm was carried ‘concealed’ how did it become know this individual was armed in the first place? Unfortunately none of this is mentioned in that almost fact free link.
But yes. ‘Like you and me, only better.’
.
September 24th, 2012 at 1:21 pm
Strangely enough, it’s possible to claim he was in the clear:
(c) 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. *
Licensed carry, especially when no school activity is going on nor students present, when en route from a gun range, can be interpreted as “other lawful purpose”.
Now, if the local prosecutors tend to charge any “normal” citizen who possesses a gun under the same circumstances, or if this school board member has called for zero tolerance on gun possession on school grounds, that’s a different story.
But as written, the article doesn’t give enough information to distinguish between hypocritical corruption and a prosecutor intelligently deciding not to waste the court’s time with a Mickey Mouse accusation that is arguably defensible, when no harm was intended, and the whole reason for the law was not even in play.