Traveling to Iowa from Wisconsin carry question

Hell everyone, I am heading back home to Iowa for the holidays and am going to be concealed carrying with my Wisconsin license. I have read the Iowa carry laws, but there is just one thing that I don't understand so well and was hoping you all could help. So here it is. What is the rules regarding being with in a 1000 feet of a school is it just a enhanced penalty area if you are caught with out a license or is it no weapons with in a 1000 ft of a school period. Thanks for your help.

madhatter12 said:

Hell everyone, I am heading back home to Iowa for the holidays and am going to be concealed carrying with my Wisconsin license. I have read the Iowa carry laws, but there is just one thing that I don't understand so well and was hoping you all could help. So here it is. What is the rules regarding being with in a 1000 feet of a school is it just a enhanced penalty area if you are caught with out a license or is it no weapons with in a 1000 ft of a school period. Thanks for your help.

Click to expand...

it is just an enhanced penalty area if you are committing a crime with a firearm.

724.4A Weapons free zones — enhanced penalties.
1. As used in this section, “weapons free zone” means the area in or on, or within one
thousand feet of, the real property comprising a public or private elementary or secondary
school, or in or on the real property comprising a public park. A weapons free zone shall not
include that portion of a public park designated as a hunting area under section 461A.42.
2. Notwithstanding sections 902.9 and 903.1, a person who commits a public offense
involving a firearm or offensive weapon, within a weapons free zone, in violation of this
or any other chapter shall be subject to a fine of twice the maximum amount which may
otherwise be imposed for the public offense.

In the eyes of the BATFE your Wisconsin permit does not exempt you from the federal Gun Free School Zones Act for any school located outside of Wisconsin.
Citation:
http://www.handgunlaw.us/documents/batf_school_zone.pdf

I am not aware of anyone actually being convicted, or even charged, under this law. To be charged one must be caught by a law enforcement officer that knew about the law and cared enough to arrest you, and then brought before a prosecutor that thought there was enough of a case to bother. Part of the law requires that the person charged knows or has reason to believe they are within a "school zone". A person around the block and out of sight of a school in unfamiliar territory may not realize they are within a "school zone" and may argue ignorance. A person standing within feet of a large sign that reads "Hubert Humphrey High" (try to place that obscure movie reference) is not likely to successfully argue ignorance.

I realize my post is likely too late to matter for the OP but this might inform others of the law and bring some discussion for future reference.

So how does the FedGov's assertion that states may not enforce federal laws (the Arizona immigration issue) play into this? Does that mean that only a federal officer could arrest someone for violating the school zone law that has already been struck down by the USSC and re-passed?

amaixner said:

So how does the FedGov's assertion that states may not enforce federal laws (the Arizona immigration issue) play into this? Does that mean that only a federal officer could arrest someone for violating the school zone law that has already been struck down by the USSC and re-passed?

Click to expand...

As I understand it, local law enforcement cannot arrest for federal crimes. Generally, if a federal crime is committed, the person is charged after being picked up on a local charge.

To the OP, amaixner is correct. Iowa law only forbids carry of firearms by citizens on school grounds. The 1000 foot rule makes it worse for someone who commits a crime, with a firearm, within that zone.

Im not sure where you are headed to, but there are alot of different cities that have passed "resolutions" prohibiting carry in certain places. Now, most of us know that those are not lawfully enforceable, but use caution. Some of these smaller governments have Napoleon complex, and dont like being told that they cant do something.

Tucker6900 said:

As I understand it, local law enforcement cannot arrest for federal crimes.

Click to expand...

As I understand it anyone can arrest anyone else for a felony, it's called a citizen's arrest. Carrying a loaded firearm on your person into a "school zone" without permission is a federal felony, punishable with up to five years in prison. I'm not quite sure how effective an unarmed person (disarmed because otherwise that person would also be in violation of the law) could make an effective arrest of an armed person but the law does allow a person to do so in every state except North Carolina.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_arrest#United_States

(A bit of a side note here. I believe the law was changed recently in North Carolina to allow a citizens arrest. The Wiki article may be out of date.)

I would assume a local LEO would have the same arrest powers when it comes to federal law as any other citizen. With the ability to go armed lawfully inside a school zone, and even on school property, along with the training in performing an arrest therefore I would assume a local LEO would be most effective in completing any such arrest.

Now, with amaixner's comments in mind...

amaixner said:

So how does the FedGov's assertion that states may not enforce federal laws (the Arizona immigration issue) play into this? Does that mean that only a federal officer could arrest someone for violating the school zone law that has already been struck down by the USSC and re-passed?

Click to expand...

one must ask if a local LEO somehow loses the power, authority, or perhaps even right, of a citizen's arrest by the nature of holding the position of a local government official. Or, is the government trying to argue that no one can make an arrest for federal crimes except federal LEOs? If that is the argument then the federal government is in opposition of centuries of common law.