Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: 18 USC 922 - Federal Gun Free School Zone

  1. #1
    Regular Member TheQ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Lansing, Michigan
    Posts
    3,448

    18 USC 922 - Federal Gun Free School Zone

    Hi. I'm the President of Michigan Open Carry, Inc.

    In Michigan we have a "Permit to Purchase and Registration scheme" involved in buying a handgun. The NRA ILA has gotten a bill introduced and a hearing is coming up. The Bill would eliminate our Permit to Purchase/Registration scheme. While we love the idea of getting rid of Registration, we have concerns about eliminating the Permit to Purchase as it gives us a vehicle for people without a CPL (Concealed Pistol License) to avoid prosecution under 18 USC 922.


    Here's my question as posed over on MGO

    18 U.S.C Section 924

    Here's my questions:

    Can anyone find a case where someone had their nuts fried on a Stand-Alone (no other Federal, State, or Local Charges involved) charge of violating a Federal Gun Free School Zone? It doesn't have to be Michigan -- it could be anywhere, has it happened?

    Constitutional Carry states -- someone walking past a school with a gun OC on their hip....

    Any state where a out-of-state reciprocity motorist is just going down a road, gets pulled over for a traffic ticket, and gets popped for being in a GFSZ...has it happened?

    Someone, anyone, please find me one case -- anywhere. This information has important lobbying/legislative implications...

    OR...are we making a lot of noise for something that has simply never happened?
    Please discuss -- any insight appreciated. Note, in this case we are concerned SOLELY with "Stand-Alone" Federal Charges for 18 USC 922. Any charges under State Laws in State Courts wouldn't be relevant to our concerns in this case.
    Call for a cop, call for an ambulance, and call for a pizza. See who shows up first.

    I am not a lawyer (merely an omnipotent member of a continuum). The contents of this post are not a substitute for sound legal advice from a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction.

    Comments and views stated in my post are my own and do not necessarily represent the views of Michigan Open Carry, Inc. unless stated otherwise in the post.

  2. #2
    Herr Heckler Koch
    Guest
    The question was asked in this thread

    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...-schools-zones!

    in which Supermoderator Mike briefly participated. Several comments suggest that 18 USC 922(q) has only been used as an enhancement to other charges. These comments have not been contradicted since.

    I found this

    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...l=514&page=549

    SCOTUS No. 93-1260. Argued November 8, 1994 Decided April 26, 1995

    After respondent, then a 12th-grade student, carried a concealed handgun into his high school, he was charged with violating the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, which forbids "any individual knowingly to possess a firearm at a place that [he] knows . . . is a school zone," 18 U.S.C. 922(q)(1)(A). The District Court denied his motion to dismiss the indictment, concluding that 922(q) is a constitutional exercise of Congress' power to regulate activities in and affecting commerce. In reversing, the Court of Appeals held that, in light of what it characterized as insufficient congressional findings and legislative history, 922(q) is invalid as beyond Congress' power under the Commerce Clause.
    Last edited by Herr Heckler Koch; 05-03-2012 at 01:49 PM.

  3. #3
    Regular Member TheQ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Lansing, Michigan
    Posts
    3,448
    Quote Originally Posted by Herr Heckler Koch View Post
    The question was asked in this thread

    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...-schools-zones!

    in which Supermoderator Mike briefly participated. Several comments suggest that 18 USC 922(q) has only been used as an enhancement to other charges. These comments have not been contradicted since.

    That's my hunch. I'm trying to find a case where it was used as a stand-alone.

    Thanks for your thoughts and the thread reference.
    Call for a cop, call for an ambulance, and call for a pizza. See who shows up first.

    I am not a lawyer (merely an omnipotent member of a continuum). The contents of this post are not a substitute for sound legal advice from a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction.

    Comments and views stated in my post are my own and do not necessarily represent the views of Michigan Open Carry, Inc. unless stated otherwise in the post.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Levittown, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    771
    I'm curious...not being from MI: The P2P does not permit loaded carry of a firearm, correct? So how does it give an exemption for 922?
    States donít have rights. People do.

  5. #5
    Regular Member TheQ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Lansing, Michigan
    Posts
    3,448
    Quote Originally Posted by mrjam2jab View Post
    I'm curious...not being from MI: The P2P does not permit loaded carry of a firearm, correct? So how does it give an exemption for 922?
    In Michigan we can carry loaded and chambered. The P2P is a "Permit To Purchase, Possess, and Transport".

    So the answer to the bolded question above is: incorrect.
    Call for a cop, call for an ambulance, and call for a pizza. See who shows up first.

    I am not a lawyer (merely an omnipotent member of a continuum). The contents of this post are not a substitute for sound legal advice from a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction.

    Comments and views stated in my post are my own and do not necessarily represent the views of Michigan Open Carry, Inc. unless stated otherwise in the post.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Livingston Co., Michigan, , USA
    Posts
    275
    Quote Originally Posted by TheQ View Post
    In Michigan we can carry loaded and chambered. The P2P is a "Permit To Purchase, Possess, and Transport".

    So the answer to the bolded question above is: incorrect.
    Come on now Q...
    He's not from MI.

    Our P2P is as stated, a permit to purchase, possess and transport. HOWEVER we do have VERY strict laws about a loaded gun in a vehicle. So, while you may transport for any legal reason, if you do not have a CPL (Concealed Pistol License) you MUST have the gun unloaded, cased, and in the trunk if the vehicle has one.
    Last edited by Leader; 05-10-2012 at 09:23 AM.

  7. #7
    Regular Member TheQ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Lansing, Michigan
    Posts
    3,448
    I'm disappointed. I didn't sense any sarcasm in your post. I didn't know you posted here....
    Call for a cop, call for an ambulance, and call for a pizza. See who shows up first.

    I am not a lawyer (merely an omnipotent member of a continuum). The contents of this post are not a substitute for sound legal advice from a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction.

    Comments and views stated in my post are my own and do not necessarily represent the views of Michigan Open Carry, Inc. unless stated otherwise in the post.

  8. #8
    Regular Member PDinDetroit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    SE, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,336
    Quote Originally Posted by TheQ View Post
    In Michigan we can carry loaded and chambered. The P2P is a "Permit To Purchase, Possess, and Transport".

    So the answer to the bolded question above is: incorrect.
    It is License to purchase, carry, possess, or transport pistol.

    http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-28-422
    Rights are like muscles. You must EXERCISE THEM to keep them from becoming atrophied.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    SW Idaho
    Posts
    1,552
    Quote Originally Posted by TheQ View Post
    While we love the idea of getting rid of Registration, we have concerns about eliminating the Permit to Purchase as it gives us a vehicle for people without a CPL (Concealed Pistol License) to avoid prosecution under 18 USC 922.

    Please discuss -- any insight appreciated. Note, in this case we are concerned SOLELY with "Stand-Alone" Federal Charges for 18 USC 922. Any charges under State Laws in State Courts wouldn't be relevant to our concerns in this case.
    I have never heard of a law-abiding citizen without a CPL being charged with 18 USC 922 alone. It's really not something I think about here in Idaho, and most OC'ers I know around here don't think it's that big of a deal, either.

    I will say, though, that I wouldn't want to make a habit of OC'ing without a permission slip inside a school zone that was near a federal building. We have a U.S. District Court here in Boise, along with some other fedgov offices, and I wouldn't be surprised if an a-hole fed. agent (sorry for the oxymoron), who didn't like OC and was aware of the law, decided to make an example of some unfortunate soul. This may be more of a concern for those who live in state capitals or other cities with a concentration of fed. offices.
    Total ignorance: an Obama supporter's stock in trade
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    All the talk about Overthrowing Big Government, Revolution, etc., it's just another one of those nostalgic ideas that individuals have idealized.
    O RLY?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...and_rebellions
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Books are overrated; and so is history.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Livingston Co., Michigan, , USA
    Posts
    275
    Quote Originally Posted by TheQ View Post
    I'm disappointed. I didn't sense any sarcasm in your post. I didn't know you posted here....
    I don't post a lot here and there wasn't any sarcasm in that one. I'll try to do better next time.

  11. #11
    Regular Member hermannr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Okanogan Highland
    Posts
    2,332
    I really don't think that anyone wants to try charge anyone under 922, except as an enhancement...Why, It will get overturned just like the original version did. The powers that be do not want it tested in court. As shown in the appeal earlier quoted in this thread.

    It just isn't a law...but it needs to go through the system to be declaired such, but they don't want it tested,

    IMHO: A license to purchase is in direct violation of the 2A. "If you license a right, it is no longer a right, but a privilage"...that is from some court ruling, can't remember which one. We either have a Right to bear arms, or we have the privilage to bear arms. The 2A and Article 1 section 24 of teh WA constitutions say it is a right....so did the Supreme court in Heller and McDonald.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Livingston Co., Michigan, , USA
    Posts
    275
    Have you found any examples of this yuet and what is MOC's stand going to be on this bill?

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    America
    Posts
    2,226
    Quote Originally Posted by Ca Patriot View Post
    This question was posed on Cal Guns forum one time and someone posted all the convictions under this law since it was re-written. If i remember correctly there were about 12 convictions since 95-96 and they were ALL in addition to numerous other major felonies.

    The most interesting thing though was that out of the 12 cases about 9 of them were from Puerto Rico, US Virgin Islands and I think Guam had a case. Very very unusual.
    That's the problem with such laws, they get tried out on criminals first to set the precedent, but are not needed for the criminals as there were already other simultaneous convictions.
    Don't believe any facts that I say! This is the internet and it is filled with lies and untruth. I invite you to look up for yourself the basic facts that my arguments might be based upon. This way we can have a discussion where logic and hints on where to find information are what is brought to the forum and people look up and verify facts for themselves.

  14. #14
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    As much as I absolutely loathe the GFSZA on basic principles, I recently gained some greater incite as to why it was enacted: To curb armed drug trafficking near schools. It was for this specific reason it includes the exemption for state-issued CCW-holders within the 1,000' zone, namely, so they could still legally carry and walk their kids to and from school.

    I still believe the best way to protect our kids is to arm all law-abiding citizens. We'd then outnumber the criminals 20:1.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  15. #15
    Herr Heckler Koch
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    I recently gained some greater incite as to why it was enacted: To curb armed drug trafficking near schools.
    Really? So simple drug trafficking is not curbed?

  16. #16
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by Ca Patriot View Post
    This question was posed on Cal Guns forum one time and someone posted all the convictions under this law since it was re-written. If i remember correctly there were about 12 convictions since 95-96 and they were ALL in addition to numerous other major felonies.

    The most interesting thing though was that out of the 12 cases about 9 of them were from Puerto Rico, US Virgin Islands and I think Guam had a case. Very very unusual.
    Once you start reading federal laws you start learning that most of the time when the law says "state" or "states" it is not referring to any of the 50 states but rather the federal territories and DC AKA the 'federal states.'

    So that there were any convictions in the 50 states is what is surprising to me.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    America
    Posts
    2,226
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    As much as I absolutely loathe the GFSZA on basic principles, I recently gained some greater incite as to why it was enacted: To curb armed drug trafficking near schools. It was for this specific reason it includes the exemption for state-issued CCW-holders within the 1,000' zone, namely, so they could still legally carry and walk their kids to and from school.

    I still believe the best way to protect our kids is to arm all law-abiding citizens. We'd then outnumber the criminals 20:1.
    That is called an excuse. If it is really about drug trafficing then such a law can be done by each state. And already drugs are illegal. Just arrest the people with drugs and those actively threatening or molesting others.
    Don't believe any facts that I say! This is the internet and it is filled with lies and untruth. I invite you to look up for yourself the basic facts that my arguments might be based upon. This way we can have a discussion where logic and hints on where to find information are what is brought to the forum and people look up and verify facts for themselves.

  18. #18
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    For crying out loud this argument is MOOT!
    http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/44/921
    (2) The term "interstate or foreign commerce" includes commerce
    between any place in a State and any place outside of that State,
    or within any possession of the United States (not including the
    Canal Zone) or the District of Columbia, but such term does not
    include commerce between places within the same State but through
    any place outside of that State. The term "State" includes the
    District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the
    possessions of the United States (not including the Canal Zone).



    It DOES NOT include the states of the union or the 50 states of the union.
    All these arguments in this thread/forum about this law are baseless unless you live in a 'federal state' and not one of the 50 states.

    So? What if the meaning is plain but the context is confusing?

    Other rules will help.

    For example, according to the rule of "ejusdem generis" (simply Latin for "of the same type"), judges are required to interpret general terms at the end of specific lists as including only things of the same type as those specifically mentioned in the list. If a statute (or contract or any legal document of any kind) lists "oranges, grapefruit, lemons, and other fruit", the doctrine of ejusdem generis limits the phrase "other fruit" to mean other citrus fruit. Apples and pears are not included. The courts may assume lawmakers intended by "other fruit" all the many types of citrus: kumquats, limes, tangelos, etc. When lawmakers list items of similar kind, then say "and other" (or similar words), the doctrine of ejusdem generis limits the word "other" to include only items of the same type.

    The only things listed in that statute are things of FEDERAL TERRITORIES. No more no less.
    So let's end this fear mongering and pointless speculation.
    If you can read the law then you can defend against any such charge in court.
    Last edited by Freedom1Man; 05-16-2012 at 07:25 AM.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  19. #19
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Daylen View Post
    That is called an excuse. If it is really about drug trafficing then such a law can be done by each state. And already drugs are illegal. Just arrest the people with drugs and those actively threatening or molesting others.
    You're correct. I said I gained some insight as to why the law was proposed and passed. I did not say I gained any sort of appreciation or respect for it.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •