The Pennsylvania Superior Court has upheld a Lancaster County man's conviction for bringing a knife to his son's elementary school in 2014.

Lancaster County assistant district attorney Travis S. Anderson said the ruling marks the first time a state appellate court has interpreted what constitutes “lawful purpose” possession of a weapon on school grounds.

Andrew Josiah Goslin was convicted by a Lancaster County court on June 2, 2015, of misdemeanor possessing a weapon on school property. He was sentenced to one year of probation.

On Sept. 4, 2014, Goslin, 32, of New Providence, met with administrators at Providence Elementary School to discuss an incident in which his son was found with a knife on school property. Goslin told the school’s principal that he had a knife and placed it on a table, according to testimony referred to in the state Superior Court’s 15-page opinion.

In appealing his conviction, Goslin argued he had his knife for a lawful purpose because he is a carpenter. He said he carries the knife with him daily.

Anderson said Goslin's case was the first time a state appellate court had to interpret the language of “lawful purpose.”

According to state law, a weapon is permitted on school property if it “is possessed and used in conjunction with a lawful supervised school activity or course or is possessed for other lawful purpose.”

Sign up for our newsletter Success! An email has been sent with a link to confirm list signup. Error! There was an error processing your request.

"That language has been out there since the law was passed (in 1980),” Anderson said Tuesday. “It never came out that a court had to interpret it before, either because the defendant didn't raise that defense or they just didn't appeal the ruling."

Chris Dreisbach, who represented Goslin at his bench trial, said the law is poorly written.

“A person shouldn't have to guess whether or not a criminal statue applies to them,” Dreisbach said Tuesday. “It was confusing enough in this case to warrant a dissenting opinion.”

The Superior Court issued a split decision, with Judge Sallie Updyke Mundy and Senior Judge Eugene B. Strassburger III upholding the lower court’s ruling. Judge Alice Beck Dubow filed a dissenting opinion.

In denying Goslin’s appeal, the Superior Court ruled a weapon on school property can only be considered lawful if it is related to school.

"Other lawful purpose does not mean any lawful purpose at all,” Anderson said. “In my brief that I filed with the court, I argued that if you interpret it that way, if I plan on going to the range after I drop my kid off at school, I can bring my gun into the school.”

Goslin, who represented himself in front of the Superior Court, said he will consider appealing to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

"I have a moral responsibility,” he said Tuesday. “It's not about me anymore. This case will be used as a precedent to either further harass law-abiding citizens such as myself.

"The law was meant to serve the people. The people were not meant to serve the law. It's a great perversion."