ed
Founder's Club Member - Moderator
After school hours a sex offender can again be on school property, but a gun owner can't.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Help with the School Property law
- Thread starter gearup
- Start date
After school hours a sex offender can again be on school property, but a gun owner can't.
Tanner
Regular Member
TFred
Regular Member
I would think that one could make a pretty good case that a school that meets in a church would fall under the paragraph (b) definition of 18.2-308.1:
(My emphasis added.)
As noted, there is probably no precedent, and nobody wants to be the test case.
TFred
PS: This question might very well be a good one for another AG opinion. He obviously isn't afraid of guns in churches.
PS2: On my first point, especially if the church folks use that part of the building for any of their church-related functions during the times that the school is not meeting.
(b) that portion of any property open to the public and then exclusively used for school-sponsored functions or extracurricular activities while such functions or activities are taking place;
(My emphasis added.)
As noted, there is probably no precedent, and nobody wants to be the test case.
TFred
PS: This question might very well be a good one for another AG opinion. He obviously isn't afraid of guns in churches.
PS2: On my first point, especially if the church folks use that part of the building for any of their church-related functions during the times that the school is not meeting.
Last edited:
Even more to the point, is a DUAL PURPOSE building that is NOT currently being used for school still a school? Is it a church when used as a church and a school when used as a school? I would assume it would be a "school" if both activities were conducted at the same time.
Tanner
Regular Member
THIS IS FOR FIGHTING THIS IS FOR FUN! :banana::monkey
Show me a church (or other edifice for conducting religious activity by any other name) that does not allow the head religious to work in an office while school is in session, or does not allow a congregant to seek/receive ministering during the time school is in session and I will show you a church that is open to the public and "exclusively used for school-sponsored functions or extracurricular activities while such functions or activities are taking place."
Folks thought that the law was supposed to keep guns out of places like McDonalds when schoolkids on a field trip were having lunch there - but if they let other customers in while the schoolkids are there the place is not being used exclusively for school-sponsored functions or extracurriculat activities.
This does not remove the restriction on bringing guns onto K-12 school property. To my awareness the only ruling on that was a case out of Petersburg where it was decided that even on weekends when school was not in session the property was a school. (Sorry, I let my Lexus/Nexis subscription run out and am too lazy to look it up "the hard way". No cite for you!) You can tell if it a K-12 school by either asking or seeing if kids who leave to go to some other school have to repeat all the work they did or are given credit for it. There are darned few "schools" that are not recognized by the State Board of Education as being schools.
Helps to know which law you might be breaking. It would be a shame to be convicted of a violation of a law that did not apply while getting off scot-free for violating the law that did apply.
stay safe.
Folks thought that the law was supposed to keep guns out of places like McDonalds when schoolkids on a field trip were having lunch there - but if they let other customers in while the schoolkids are there the place is not being used exclusively for school-sponsored functions or extracurriculat activities.
This does not remove the restriction on bringing guns onto K-12 school property. To my awareness the only ruling on that was a case out of Petersburg where it was decided that even on weekends when school was not in session the property was a school. (Sorry, I let my Lexus/Nexis subscription run out and am too lazy to look it up "the hard way". No cite for you!) You can tell if it a K-12 school by either asking or seeing if kids who leave to go to some other school have to repeat all the work they did or are given credit for it. There are darned few "schools" that are not recognized by the State Board of Education as being schools.
Helps to know which law you might be breaking. It would be a shame to be convicted of a violation of a law that did not apply while getting off scot-free for violating the law that did apply.
stay safe.
I am not sure I agree with all this.
The words, "The exemptions set out in § 18.2-308 shall apply, mutatis mutandis, to the provisions of this section", in no way mean that ALL the exemptions apply equally or as written. It literally means, "The exemptions set out in § 18.2-308 shall apply, having changed what needed to be changed, to the provisions of this section" or even more literally "The exemptions set out in § 18.2-308 shall apply, as ammended in this paragraph, to the provisions of this section"
FOR EXAMPLE:
§ 18.2-308. Personal protection; carrying concealed weapons; when lawful to carry; penalty.
B. This section shall not apply to any person while in his own place of abode or the curtilage thereof.
Except as provided in subsection J1, this section shall not apply to:
1. Any person while in his own place of business;
Now we know that teachers cannot carry to work.
Where is the precedence set that ALL the exemptions in § 18.2-308 shall apply as written? This could mean that one could unload and wrap up you gun collection, strap them to your back and walk through a school and say you were on your way to the range? I am pretty sure that is not the intent of the law.
I am in a perpetual state of confusion.
TFred
Regular Member
I can see why...
I am not a lawyer, we'd need one to clear up the fuzzy meanings of those words, but what I take the "mutatis mutandis" provisions to mean in layman's terms is that unless the other part of the law specifically contradicts what we're saying here, then these exemptions also apply there.
Several easy flaws in your examples. Teachers do not own the school, it is not their place of business, it is where they go to do their job. They are employees. Plus more important the "place of business" only applies to the exemption for carrying concealed, and has nothing to do with the completely different law that prohibits carry on school grounds. The provision for carrying while going to the range is the same idea, it's an exemption to the concealed carry law, and does not explicitly override the school carry law. Two completely unrelated things.
Most of this stuff is fairly common sense, with a few difficult vocabulary words thrown in. I think you're making it a lot harder than you have to.
FYI, in a VA-Alert mail message from May 21, 2010, just prior to the new secured container exemption going into effect, PVC had this to say:
K-12 SCHOOLS
The new vehicle carry law, above, has an additional benefit for BOTH CHP holders and non-CHP holders. Under the law effective July 1, a loaded handgun can be kept in a secured container or a secured compartment in a motor vehicle while on K-12 school property.
The new vehicle carry law (18.2-308 B 10) is in the list of general exemptions from the concealed weapon law. Police officers and Commonwealth Attorneys, for example, are listed in 18.2-308 B. The key is that in the third paragraph of the K-12 school weapons law (18.2-308.1) it says that anyone exempted from the concealed weapon law is also exempted from the ban on guns on K-12 school property.
Thus, as long as your loaded handgun is in a secured compartment or a secured container BEFORE you pull onto school property and REMAINS SECURED in that compartment or container UNTIL AFTER you pull off the property, you are legal.
In case those of you with CHPs are wondering why you can't carry outside of your vehicle on K-12 school property, that's because the CHP wording (18.2-308 D) is NOT in the list of exemptions to the concealed weapon law (18.2-308 B and 18.2-308 C). Instead, you can think of your CHP as a "get out of jail free" card. You are not actually exempted from the concealed carry law, but you have an affirmative defense against any prosecution.
The new vehicle carry law, above, has an additional benefit for BOTH CHP holders and non-CHP holders. Under the law effective July 1, a loaded handgun can be kept in a secured container or a secured compartment in a motor vehicle while on K-12 school property.
The new vehicle carry law (18.2-308 B 10) is in the list of general exemptions from the concealed weapon law. Police officers and Commonwealth Attorneys, for example, are listed in 18.2-308 B. The key is that in the third paragraph of the K-12 school weapons law (18.2-308.1) it says that anyone exempted from the concealed weapon law is also exempted from the ban on guns on K-12 school property.
Thus, as long as your loaded handgun is in a secured compartment or a secured container BEFORE you pull onto school property and REMAINS SECURED in that compartment or container UNTIL AFTER you pull off the property, you are legal.
In case those of you with CHPs are wondering why you can't carry outside of your vehicle on K-12 school property, that's because the CHP wording (18.2-308 D) is NOT in the list of exemptions to the concealed weapon law (18.2-308 B and 18.2-308 C). Instead, you can think of your CHP as a "get out of jail free" card. You are not actually exempted from the concealed carry law, but you have an affirmative defense against any prosecution.
Hope that is helpful.
TFred
TFred
Regular Member
I think I know the answer to this but been wanting to run it by the crowd for some discussion.
Classic case of property that is sometimes used for school events but not always.
Fredericksburg's James Monroe High School plays football and other field sports in a stadium apart from any current school building. It is adjacent to what used to be a school, but that property has since been redeveloped into privately held condominiums. The city owns the field and an associated field house, containing locker rooms, and a concession stand.
During the summer months, the Bluemont organization hosts several Saturday evening concerts. When the weather is cooperative, they hold them on the southern end of the stadium property, behind the visiting team bleachers, under large trees.
You can clearly see all this on the Google Satellite imagery.
As best I can tell, since the field is not the site of any school building, and the concert is not a school-affiliated event, it should be just fine to carry while attending the concert.
Am I leaving anything out?
TFred
Classic case of property that is sometimes used for school events but not always.
Fredericksburg's James Monroe High School plays football and other field sports in a stadium apart from any current school building. It is adjacent to what used to be a school, but that property has since been redeveloped into privately held condominiums. The city owns the field and an associated field house, containing locker rooms, and a concession stand.
During the summer months, the Bluemont organization hosts several Saturday evening concerts. When the weather is cooperative, they hold them on the southern end of the stadium property, behind the visiting team bleachers, under large trees.
You can clearly see all this on the Google Satellite imagery.
As best I can tell, since the field is not the site of any school building, and the concert is not a school-affiliated event, it should be just fine to carry while attending the concert.
Am I leaving anything out?
TFred
TFred you have the patience of a Saint. I think I am begining to understand.
I did ask for an AG opinion and it looks like I will get it.
*****************************************************************************
Hi Mr. #######,
We will be happy to look into this issue for you.
Cindy Rhodes
Legislative Aide
Delegate Christopher P. Stolle, M.D. | PO Box 5429 | Virginia Beach, VA 23471
757. 633.2080 *: cindy@chrisstolle.com
Constituent Services *: DelCStolle@house.virginia.gov
Legislative Website www.chrisstolle.com
I did ask for an AG opinion and it looks like I will get it.
*****************************************************************************
Hi Mr. #######,
We will be happy to look into this issue for you.
Cindy Rhodes
Legislative Aide
Delegate Christopher P. Stolle, M.D. | PO Box 5429 | Virginia Beach, VA 23471
757. 633.2080 *: cindy@chrisstolle.com Constituent Services *: DelCStolle@house.virginia.gov
Legislative Website www.chrisstolle.com
Last edited:
WalkingWolf
Regular Member
A church is private property, and private property is exempt in the GFSZ act. So IMO if the church is in a seperate building from the school it is exempt also.
The OP was asking about state law Walking Wolf. State law includes private K-12 schools.
Here is a rather frightening scenario and an example of how the GFSZ has bled over into VA law:
Let's say you need to pick up your child from school. So, you park on a public street near the school and decide to unload your pistol before leaving it in your locked car. Oops, you have an ND while unloading - no one hurt because you kept the gun pointed in a safe direction. However, the police show up and you are charged. You are charged with: § 18.2-280. Willfully discharging firearms in public places.
Now although your ND was unintentional, note that this statute has an or clause saying; "or causes to be discharged." So, despite the title having willfully in it, an ND falls under this statue too. In fact, this is what the guy who had the ND at Hooter's following a gun show is charged with - in his case it's a class 6 felony due to another person being injured (shot).
In the scenario, nobody was injured. But, it's even worse than the Hooter's incident. It's a class 4 felony. What, you say! That's right it's a class 4 felony because it happened on public property within a 1000 feet of a school: Here's the statute's applicable section:
"C. If any person willfully discharges or causes to be discharged any firearm upon any public property within 1,000 feet of the property line of any public, private or religious elementary, middle or high school property he shall be guilty of a Class 4 felony, unless he is engaged in lawful hunting."
The GFSZ law no one wants to worry about can bite you where you least expect it. Work to get it off the books!
Last edited:
TFred
Regular Member
I agree the Virginia law needs to be fixed, but you speak of them as though they are the same. The Federal GFSZA and the Virginia Code Section 18.2-280 are two completely different laws. Just as now, if you OC on the sidewalk within 1000' of a school, who is going to charge you with a violation of the GFSZA for a ND?
TFred
What is the same is the 1000' from a school property line. And, where do you think the 1000' came from?
Any VA LE with arrest powers could charge you with a felony for having an ND on public property within 1000' of a k-12 school property line (Virginia Code Section 18.2-280).
As to who is going to charge you with a violation of the [federal] GFSZA (no ND required just having a gun is enough, unless you have one of the listed exemptions such as a VA CHP), and with Eric Holder as the federal AG, it could be damn near any federal agent. You might be quite surprised at just how many federal agencies have agents with arrest powers - more than a few I assure you. As long as this law is on the books, it's a threat and with Holder as the AG, it's one that could go ugly anytime.
Last edited:
TFred
Regular Member
Few would disagree with your bolded statement. The point is that it isn't happening now, so until it does, there isn't much point in worrying about it any more than we ever have. I absolutely hate the GFSZA, it's a big hammer that the Feds hold over every law abiding gun owner's head. If it ever makes its way back to the SCOTUS, I'm quite sure it would be struck down. You could probably sell tickets to hear Alan Gura's oral arguments against it. But as is always the case, nobody wants to be the test.
TFred
I'm not at all confident SCOTUS would even hear a case involving this law much less overturn it. It's been used as an add-on crime several times now without being overturned.