Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 40

Thread: OC on Motorcycle - Passing by Schools

  1. #1
    Regular Member dmatting's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Durham, NC
    Posts
    443

    OC on Motorcycle - Passing by Schools

    I OC while I ride to/from work. No matter what route I take I am guaranteed to pass by at least two schools. Actually, I could cut that down to one school but it would mean going about 10 to 15 minutes in a round-about route. I guess that's not horrible - just means more time on the bike. Still means passing at least one school, though.

    Anyway, when I go to work in my truck, I don't worry about it at all. But when I'm on the bike, the gun is on my right hip for all to see. Do the Gun Free School Zones include simply driving through them? I haven't had any problems but I would hate to get pulled over on some stupid violation like that but I also don't want to have to stuff the gun under my leather jacket.

    Does anyone know the law(s) pertaining to this?

    Thanks

  2. #2
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,622
    Yep - GFSZ includes walking, riding, standing, or crawling. The only real protection is having a permit from the state in which the school is located. While I have not known a violation to be charged as a primary offense, there is always a risk and doing so would violate the law.
    I know....that just ain't right.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  3. #3
    Regular Member dmatting's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Durham, NC
    Posts
    443
    I have my NC CHP. Is that the only stipulation (simply having it on me) or do I have to be carrying concealed in order for that to be effective?

    Of course, if I carried concealed while riding I would likely not be asking these questions...

  4. #4
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,622
    Quote Originally Posted by dmatting View Post
    I have my NC CHP. Is that the only stipulation (simply having it on me) or do I have to be carrying concealed in order for that to be effective?

    Of course, if I carried concealed while riding I would likely not be asking these questions...
    Your permit doesn't say must be carried concealed does it? It allows you to conceal.

    The federal law does not stipulate how the gun should be carried, only that the individual have a permit. I routinely OC in GFSZs in Va. but to do so in NC would be illegal for me technically - makes no sense does it.
    http://www.gunlaws.com/Gun_Free_School_Zones_Act.pdf
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  5. #5
    Regular Member carolina guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Concord, NC
    Posts
    1,790

    Hmm...not so sure...

    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    Your permit doesn't say must be carried concealed does it? It allows you to conceal.

    The federal law does not stipulate how the gun should be carried, only that the individual have a permit. I routinely OC in GFSZs in Va. but to do so in NC would be illegal for me technically - makes no sense does it.
    http://www.gunlaws.com/Gun_Free_School_Zones_Act.pdf
    From the GFSZA:
    "(B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the
    possession of a firearm—
    (i) on private property not part of school grounds;
    (ii) if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to
    do so by the State in which the school zone is located
    or a political subdivision of the State, and the law of
    the State or political subdivision requires that, before
    an individual obtain s such a license, the law
    enforcement authorities of the State or political
    subdivision verify that the individual is qualified
    under law to receive the license
    ;"

    Since NC does not license private people to have nor prohibit them from having a firearm without a permit, I think that part B(ii) might just be moot.

    The NC CC permit only allows an individual that is otherwise allowed to carry a pistol, to do so concealed. In either case, you are not allowed to bring it ON school property, but are not prohibited from passing by since those are public roadways.

    Keep in mind there are quite a few schools that are within 1000 feet of a state highway, or even an interstate...that could make someone illegal without even knowing the school was there, or how far it was from their lane of travel.

    I would also temper this in light of the recent SCOTUS decisions...sounds like an illegal encroachment on 2A to me.
    Last edited by carolina guy; 06-21-2012 at 12:37 PM.

  6. #6
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,622
    Quote Originally Posted by carolina guy View Post
    From the GFSZA:
    "(B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the
    possession of a firearm—
    (i) on private property not part of school grounds;
    (ii) if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to
    do so by the State in which the school zone is located
    or a political subdivision of the State, and the law of
    the State or political subdivision requires that, before
    an individual obtain s such a license, the law
    enforcement authorities of the State or political
    subdivision verify that the individual is qualified
    under law to receive the license
    ;"

    Since NC does not license private people to have nor prohibit them from having a firearm without a permit, I think that part B(ii) might just be moot.

    The NC CC permit only allows an individual that is otherwise allowed to carry a pistol, to do so concealed. In either case, you are not allowed to bring it ON school property, but are not prohibited from passing by since those are public roadways.
    Actually it is not moot at all. B(ii) is the operative/definitive clause allowing those with permits to carry in GFSZ.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  7. #7
    Regular Member dmatting's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Durham, NC
    Posts
    443
    It's good that the law is so clear.

    I'm still not sure what the right answer is. I figure I can conceal without issue but I would rather OC.

    Grapeshot, it sounds as though your interpretation of it is that my CHP allows me to carry in either mode through the GFSZ. Please correct me if I am interpreting your comments incorrectly.

  8. #8
    Regular Member ArmySoldier22's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Concord, NC
    Posts
    406
    I've actually asked this same question on here before too. Every direction I go, I pass a school. For legal reasons, I won't say whether or not that's stopped me from OCing, but I'm sure you can guess the answer. I may or may not have passed by police officers directing traffic in said areas as well, without issue.

  9. #9
    Regular Member carolina guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Concord, NC
    Posts
    1,790
    I know this could be taken as a "nitpicky" view... and, yes, I know it is sideline quarterbacking, and not from a jail cell. :-) IANAL!

    1) Consider the definition of a "school"...

    18 USC § 921 Definitions
    (a) As used in this chapter—
    (25) The term “school zone” means—
    (A) in, or on the grounds of, a public, parochial or
    private school; or
    (B) within a distance of 1,000 feet from the grounds of
    a public, parochial or private school.
    (26) The term “school” means a school which provides
    elementary or secondary education, as determined
    under State law.
    This means that ALL homeschools in the US also qualify as a "school" which means that nobody can travel past any home where children are homeschooled. Now, the courts have included a phrase similar to the person should have "resonably known there were in a school zone..." but given the increasing numbers of people that homeschool (myself included), you might have to "reasonably" conclude that ANY street that has children, might include some that homeschool making that street off limits for the "unlicensed" to travel with a firearm. Here is a good writeup along these lines:

    http://gunowners.org/fs9611.htm

    http://trib.com/news/state-and-regio...9e221237e.html

    In Cabarrus country alone, there are over 1000 registered homeschools. Most are on different streets, making over 1000 streets in this county a "no-go" zone since this information is available on the states website (www.ncdnpe.org).

    2) The right to have children, raise and educate your children, and maintain a household have been declared "fundamental rights" and are subject to "strict scrutiny" when laws/government actions interfer. When you consider the hurdles that the government must overcome to exercise control in the presence of a "fundamental" right, it is unlikely that this law could survive had it been challenged on this basis. Here are a few cases:

    Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923).
    Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925)
    Farrington v. Tokushige, 273 U.S. 284 (1927) at 298.
    Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944).
    Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, (1965) at 486.
    Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 at 233.
    Paris Adult Theater v. Slaton, 413 US 49, 65 (1973)
    Carey v. Population Services International, 431 US 678, 684-686 (1977)
    Maher v. Roe, 432 US 464, 476-479 (1977)
    Parham v. J.R., 442 US 584, 602-606 (1979).
    Santosky v. Kramer, 455 US 745, 753 (1982)
    City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health Inc., 462 US 416, 461 (1983)
    Lehr v. Robertson, 463 US 248, 257-258 (1983)
    Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 476 US 747 (1986)
    Board of Directors of Rotary International v. Rotary Club of Duarte, 481 US 537 (1987)
    Michael H. v. Gerald, 491 U.S. 110 (1989)
    Employment Division of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990)
    Hodgson v. Minnesota, 497 U.S. 417 (1990)
    Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton, 132 L.Ed.2d 564, 115 S.Ct. 2386 (1995)
    Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000)


    3) Recent SCOTUS rulings have applied the the 2A directly to the states.

    4) It would not be too hard to argue that the 2A is the "license" granted by the Constitution for the people to keep AND bear arms.

    5) The right to travel is a common law right that is upheld by the Bill of Rights, so restricting the ability to travel legally by placing ill-defined school zones is vague at best. Consider that there are over 98,000 PUBLIC schools in the US (over 2,500 in NC alone)...this does not include private, parochial or home schools. So you have to surrender your right to self defense to exercise your right to free movement?

    6) The size of the vaguely placed zones is arbitrary at best...where are the edges of the schools grounds so you can start to measure 1000' from them?

    7) All of the court cases that have been appealed post-1995 have involved other crimes (drugs, robbery, etc) and not simply being in peaceful possession within 1000' of a school.

    8) It has NOT been challenged in the 4th Circuit (covers NC, VA, SC, WV, DC, and MD) so all of the other appeals from the other circuit courts are not binding on the ones in this Circuit.

    So...that said, I don't think anyone who is not breaking some other law really has anything to worry about...there are hundreds of thousands of potential federal felons that are peacefully traveling the highways and streets everyday, and thousands of them are off-duty police officers!
    Last edited by carolina guy; 06-21-2012 at 04:28 PM.

  10. #10
    Regular Member carolina guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Concord, NC
    Posts
    1,790

    Might be just as simple as...

    everyone remembering that a right not defended can be lost.

    The 2nd Amendment is your license to carry. It was issued by the Founders in 1789 (well 1787, technically). Why make this more complicated??

    A law that makes it almost impossible to peacefully exercise your RIGHTS is tyranny.

    The Founders expected that the people would not obey unjust and unconstitutional laws...of course, they also expected that the citizenry would be educated and know an unconstitutional law when they see one. ;-)

    According to < http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CON...CONAN-2010.pdf > the SCOTUS found that the "right to keep and bear arms extended beyond the context of militia service to include self-defense."

    I choose to protect myself and my family and don't think that criminals are too concerned for how close to a school they are when they break the law. (Criminal thinking: "hmm...is this 900' or 1000'...I need to rob the next person and don't want to get in trouble for being too close..." ) :-)
    Last edited by carolina guy; 06-21-2012 at 04:18 PM.

  11. #11
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,279
    IMO the law is intentionally vague, I believe that BATF has made statements that a permit does allow carry. BUT the law does not say anything about concealed carry permit. It says licensed to do so, and most if not all permits do not license the holder specifically to carry in a GFSZ. It is just not there in the law. There are two clear ways to get around the law that is actually worded in the law. Carry an antique firearm as defined by federal statutes, or carry a gun manufactured in your state that has not in any way been in interstate commerce. Though you will get hassled by some numpty officer that does not actually read and understand the law. If the bias of SCOTUS ever shifts to the left considerably, expect enforcement to be much more active, again IMO. Right now at the losses from SCOTUS handed to the left they just do not want to chance it.

    I carry a antique firearm whenever I will encounter a GFSZ.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    326
    The GFSZ law is a federal tack on charge. No local or state cop is going to stop you because you are driving by a school. This law is intended for people that conduct illegal activity near a school (sell drugs, traffic weapons, etc.) have a weapon and those felonies become federal crimes when they throw in the GFSZ charge.

  13. #13
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Grennsboro NC
    Posts
    5,358
    Quote Originally Posted by carolina guy View Post
    So...that said, I don't think anyone who is not breaking some other law really has anything to worry about...there are hundreds of thousands of potential federal felons that are peacefully traveling the highways and streets everyday, and thousands of them are off-duty police officers!

    LEOs are specifically exempt from the Federal GFSZ Act.

    Because they are SOOOO much more trustworthy than "regular citizens" when it comes to carrying and using firearms...
    It is our cause to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard decisions in the delusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony, if we just don't rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggression—and this is hogwash."
    --Barry Goldwater, 1964

  14. #14
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,622
    Quote Originally Posted by dmatting View Post
    It's good that the law is so clear.

    I'm still not sure what the right answer is. I figure I can conceal without issue but I would rather OC.

    Grapeshot, it sounds as though your interpretation of it is that my CHP allows me to carry in either mode through the GFSZ. Please correct me if I am interpreting your comments incorrectly.
    That is precisely my point. I do regularly OC well within the proscribed GFSZ distance, have stood and had pleasant conversations with LEOs about various things too.

    IMO eventually this law will be found to be unconstitutional just as the prior version was.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  15. #15
    Regular Member dmatting's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Durham, NC
    Posts
    443
    Alright - I'm not going to worry about it - I'll carry on as usual with it OC on my hip.

    Thanks

  16. #16
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,279
    The really ironic result of the law is it actually impedes commerce, that should be enough to have it thrown out in itself.

  17. #17
    Regular Member carolina guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Concord, NC
    Posts
    1,790
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreamer View Post
    LEOs are specifically exempt from the Federal GFSZ Act.

    Because they are SOOOO much more trustworthy than "regular citizens" when it comes to carrying and using firearms...
    Actually, off duty LEO's are not exempt...that is the kicker only a "...law enforcement officer acting in his or her official capacity."

    Otherwise, they are required to have the same "license" that the rest of us do else they are "guilty" as well.

    But I agree...from what I have seen, this looks like an add-on charge for drug dealers and the type to keep them behind bars a bit longer. I still think it is unconstitutional, but hey, if they don't (and haven't) been making the correct arguments in court, I guess they get what they deserve. :-)
    Last edited by carolina guy; 06-22-2012 at 10:13 AM.

  18. #18
    Regular Member carolina guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Concord, NC
    Posts
    1,790
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    The really ironic result of the law is it actually impedes commerce, that should be enough to have it thrown out in itself.
    That would be one of the other challenges I would make on its constitutionality...just because a gun was involved at some point in it's existence in interstate commerce doesn't mean that you riding with it on your hip is, in anyway, shape, manner or form CURRENTLY involved in interstate commerce unless you are being PAID to carry it on your hip.

    Since my carry pistol pre dates the GFSZ act, wouldn't including it be an ex post facto law?
    Last edited by carolina guy; 06-22-2012 at 10:23 AM.

  19. #19
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,279
    Quote Originally Posted by carolina guy View Post
    That would be one of the other challenges I would make on its constitutionality...just because a gun was involved at some point in it's existence in interstate commerce doesn't mean that you riding with it on your hip is, in anyway, shape, manner or form CURRENTLY involved in interstate commerce unless you are being PAID to carry it on your hip.

    Since my carry pistol pre dates the GFSZ act, wouldn't including it be an ex post facto law?
    The gun would need to fit the federal definition of antique firearm as federal firearm definitions exclude antique firearms. The law itself clearly excludes guns manufactured and that have stayed within the boarders of the state. The law IMO restricts movement to a business within the school zone of armed customers, that hinders all commerce to that business. Again IMO the law was clearly passed to intimidate lawful citizens from carrying firearms. The legislators of this bill are well aware that in a urban environment there is little real estate that is not within a GFSZ. The only reason again IMO they have restrained themselves is SCOTUS. I pray everyday for the health of the justices, may they live very long, and stay on the bench.

    I carry either a 51 Navy, or 58 Remy, both very capable of providing self defense, both antique firearms. The Remy can be carried safely with six loaded chambers, and can be swiftly reloaded with preloaded cylinders. Not only will these guns do the job if needed, they have the added benefit of making a big boom, and setting the recipient on fire if in close range. This besides the hole will throw any attacker off his game.

  20. #20
    Regular Member Medic1210's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Rockingham, NC
    Posts
    298
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    Actually it is not moot at all. B(ii) is the operative/definitive clause allowing those with permits to carry in GFSZ.
    I am curious if a permit is considered the same as a license, legally, or is licensed referring to LEO and other armed security personnel? Reason I ask is, in my field of work, there is a big difference with being permitted to perform a task in the hospital as opposed to being licensed by the state. Same goes when comparing a learner's permit versus an actual driver's license. Or am I misinterpreting something? I just wonder if this clarification has been specifically ruled in a court of law? I'm asking for my own education, and not to be confrontational.
    Last edited by Medic1210; 06-22-2012 at 11:11 PM.

  21. #21
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,279
    Quote Originally Posted by Medic1210 View Post
    I am curious if a permit is considered the same as a license, legally, or is licensed referring to LEO and other armed security personnel? Reason I ask is, in my field of work, there is a big difference with being permitted to perform a task in the hospital as opposed to being licensed by the state. Same goes when comparing a learner's permit versus an actual driver's license. Or am I misinterpreting something? I just wonder if this clarification has been specifically ruled in a court of law? I'm asking for my own education, and not to be confrontational.
    I read a law as it is written, and while not a lawyer I had years of experience with lawyers, laws, and courts, as well as being considered a expert witness. IMO the only way a permit is a license to do so is if the state law specifically states that a permit is a license to posses a firearm in a school zone. The wording allows the states to either make it legal or illegal despite the permit. And actually NC concealed carry law specifically points to federal laws as to where a permit holder can and cannot carry. I also consider the GFSZ to be unconstitutional, and counter to claims of commerce. There are already laws on the books to prosecute gang bangers committing crimes on or near school grounds. This law was nothing more than a way to intimidate gun carriers not to carry in urban environment. I think that until the law is overturned that a push should be made to put wording in the concealed carry law to allow both PP and CWP to carry in a GFSZ. Then we would actually be licensed to do so.

  22. #22
    Regular Member carolina guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Concord, NC
    Posts
    1,790
    Quote Originally Posted by Medic1210 View Post
    I am curious if a permit is considered the same as a license, legally, or is licensed referring to LEO and other armed security personnel? Reason I ask is, in my field of work, there is a big difference with being permitted to perform a task in the hospital as opposed to being licensed by the state. Same goes when comparing a learner's permit versus an actual driver's license. Or am I misinterpreting something? I just wonder if this clarification has been specifically ruled in a court of law? I'm asking for my own education, and not to be confrontational.
    A simple definition of "license" is permission being granted to do something which is otherwise illegal. Feel free to research the legal definitions of license to verify.

    This is why it is almost non-nonsensical to think of a "license" to carry a firearm in the United States by a person who is otherwise allowed to own and possess a firearm (ie. not a felon, underage, or mentally deficient). The 2nd Amendment already covers this, so no extra "permission" is required to carry non-concealed.

  23. #23
    Regular Member Medic1210's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Rockingham, NC
    Posts
    298
    Then what is the difference between a learner's permit and an actual driver's license? Why not call them both permits? My belief is that permits come with more restrictions than licenses.

    What I want to know is, has this ever been tested and proven in a court of law? Or has anybody gotten this verified by the attorney general? Or are we making assumptions based on our own beliefs and understanding of the law? Don't get me wrong, I'd love for it to be true, I just don't want to find out the hard way that it isn't.

  24. #24
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,279
    Supposedly BATF has ruled that a concealed carry permit allows one to carry in a GFSZ, but I have not seen the ruling or can I actually find it in a search. Just claims that it is a out for GFSZ. Personally I just do not worry about it as I have not seen any cases of prosecution for just GFSZ alone. Now if one flaunts there gun in a effort to be a test case that would be their choice, I am not willing or wanting to go through the headache. I cover my hind end the best way I can and still carry.

  25. #25
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,622
    It is not a BATF ruling - it is in the federal statute

    Title 18 U.S.C §922(q) - Gun Free School Zones Act

    .......if a person has a concealed carry permit physically issued by the state in which the school is located. Although this exception allows permit holders to legally travel armed in their home State, it does not protect them if they wish to visit other states which recognize their permit through reciprocity agreements.
    http://groups.google.com/group/ncagf...6022cc9b399ba9
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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