Results 1 to 22 of 22

Thread: federal law on weapons in school area

  1. #1
    Regular Member ptrdsmn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Concord, NH
    Posts
    18

    federal law on weapons in school area

    Can someone clarify the law? I'm in New Hampshire. Open carry state...I have a pistol/revolver lic.....is it legal for me to walk by a school within 1000 ft as long as I'm legal to carry? Can I open carry or does It have to be concealed?

  2. #2
    Regular Member self preservation's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Owingsville,KY
    Posts
    1,039
    Quote Originally Posted by ptrdsmn View Post
    Can someone clarify the law? I'm in New Hampshire. Open carry state...I have a pistol/revolver lic.....is it legal for me to walk by a school within 1000 ft as long as I'm legal to carry? Can I open carry or does It have to be concealed?
    With a license you are exempt from the 1000 ft school zone in the state that you are licensed in. As far as OC vs CC...that depends on what the state law says. The federal level doesn't care.
    “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” Edmund Burke

    self-pres·er·va·tion (slfprzr-vshn)
    n.
    1. Protection of oneself from harm or destruction.
    2. The instinct for individual preservation; the innate desire to stay alive.

  3. #3
    Regular Member ptrdsmn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Concord, NH
    Posts
    18
    That's how I thought. NH doesn't have state laws against. I opened carried an hour ago past a k-12 school most of the way but then put my sweat shirt over it just so not to be hassled. People were slowing down in cars looking at me walking down main st open carry.

  4. #4
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    This is not legal advice nor is it encouragement to break the law, buuuutttt..

    I am not aware of the ATF yanking anyone merely for OCing within 1000 feet of a skrool, every single case I am aware of involving GFSZA occurs after the local or state law enforcement/courts have arrested and charged that individual with something else dirty then the feds nail them for GFSZA

    The feds may come in and charge GFSZA if

    ... you're selling drugs at skrool while packing
    ... you violate a no-contact order or try to kidnap a student while packing
    ... you beat up a student or employee of the school while packing.

    something along those lines

    I have NEVER heard of the ATF just laying in wait for some oik to come along lugging their gun just one inch inside the line, every single GFSZA charge I know of has been as a result of someone carrying a gun while doing something else illegal or as a result of an unrelated investigation, and the ATF have NEVER been the primary agency involved in a charge, they always take over the charge after your local officer friendly working the beat has jacked you up for something else.
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  5. #5
    Regular Member self preservation's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Owingsville,KY
    Posts
    1,039
    I have always heard that too. But I would hate to be the first one that gets arrested by the feds just for coming to close to a school.
    “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” Edmund Burke

    self-pres·er·va·tion (slfprzr-vshn)
    n.
    1. Protection of oneself from harm or destruction.
    2. The instinct for individual preservation; the innate desire to stay alive.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,509
    Quote Originally Posted by ptrdsmn View Post
    That's how I thought. NH doesn't have state laws against.
    NH doesn't even have laws against carrying inside the school itself.

    Just one more reason I love this state and have made it my new home.

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Another person offering free legal opinion -

    For states that do not require a discrete "license" to carry a firearm, the law stating such generally serves as your "license" for purposes of complying with the GFSZ law.

    But remember that it only applies in your home state. Even if you have, for instance, a Virginia non-resident permit that would not protect you from a GFSZ violation in Virginia.

    That, of course, prseumes there was a US Marshal about to charge you with the offense. Nobody yet has been able to find a citation of someone charged with violation of the GFSZ as the primary offense. There are lots of examples of it being used to pile more charges on someone.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Long gone
    Posts
    2,575
    [QUOTE=skidmark;1856073]Another person offering free legal opinion -



    But remember that it only applies in your home state. Even if you have, for instance, a Virginia non-resident permit that would not protect you from a GFSZ violation in Virginia.

    Skidmark I have to disagree with you here, if you have concealed permit from the state you are in you are good, residency has noting to do with it.

    (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 obtains 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;

    You can find the full text here; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun-Fre...es_Act_of_1990
    Last edited by Jeff Hayes; 11-22-2012 at 06:52 PM. Reason: caint speal vary goot

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    federal law on weapons in school area

    (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 obtains such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified.
    What does "is licensed to do so by" mean? Does it specifically mean "has been issued a paper license to do so by"? Or does it mean "is permitted to do so by"? The plain meaning of "licensed" does not necessarily mean that someone has been issued a piece of paper. If someone is ever busted under this law, but has a license from a reciprocal State or is given permission under the law, they should argue that the word "licensed" has many plain language meanings and should be construed against the government in the way that least restricts the behavior of people.

    Note: I am not advocating that anyone should put themselves in this situation just to test the law. However, I think the above argument is a winner.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>

  10. #10
    Regular Member MKEgal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    in front of my computer, WI
    Posts
    4,426
    If anyone's interested in reading the applicable US Code...:
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922

    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle
    I have NEVER heard of the ATF just laying in wait for some oik to come along lugging their gun just one inch inside the line
    Not ATF, but local police have done that.
    A guy in (IIRC) Green Bay, WI was riding his bike through town, he thought he had carefully mapped where he was allowed to ride & was outside the magic unmarked 1000' line, the police disagreed, arrested him, charged him.

    They measured from the school to where he was riding three times, coming up with different distances each time, sometimes coming up over 1000', sometimes coming up less than 1000'.

    The judge finally dismissed the charges, saying something to the effect of "if even the police, with measuring equipment, can't figure out where the line is, nobody else can be expected to".

    Granted, all this happened before our cc law.
    Quote Originally Posted by MLK, Jr
    The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort & convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge & controversy.
    Quote Originally Posted by MSG Laigaie
    Citizenship is a verb.
    Quote Originally Posted by Proverbs 27:12
    A prudent person foresees the danger ahead and takes precautions.
    The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences.
    Quote Originally Posted by Proverbs 31:17
    She dresses herself with strength and makes her arms strong.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Levittown, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    771
    Quote Originally Posted by Orphan View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    Another person offering free legal opinion -



    But remember that it only applies in your home state. Even if you have, for instance, a Virginia non-resident permit that would not protect you from a GFSZ violation in Virginia.
    Skidmark I have to disagree with you here, if you have concealed permit from the state you are in you are good, residency has noting to do with it.

    (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 obtains 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;

    You can find the full text here; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun-Fre...es_Act_of_1990
    Agreed. Residency has no part of it.
    States don’t have rights. People do.

  12. #12
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    Quote Originally Posted by MKEgal View Post
    If anyone's interested in reading the applicable US Code...:
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922


    Not ATF, but local police have done that.
    A guy in (IIRC) Green Bay, WI was riding his bike through town, he thought he had carefully mapped where he was allowed to ride & was outside the magic unmarked 1000' line, the police disagreed, arrested him, charged him.

    They measured from the school to where he was riding three times, coming up with different distances each time, sometimes coming up over 1000', sometimes coming up less than 1000'.

    The judge finally dismissed the charges, saying something to the effect of "if even the police, with measuring equipment, can't figure out where the line is, nobody else can be expected to".

    Granted, all this happened before our cc law.

    Well good on the judge, that is the correct ruling

    However IIRC doesn't Wisconsin have a state level GFSZA (948.605) with that magic 1000 foot zone? I'm certain local police were not enforcing the federal law for the Feds, they were trying to jack people up with a ticket for the state violation, I would assume
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  13. #13
    Regular Member self preservation's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Owingsville,KY
    Posts
    1,039
    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    Well good on the judge, that is the correct ruling

    However IIRC doesn't Wisconsin have a state level GFSZA (948.605) with that magic 1000 foot zone? I'm certain local police were not enforcing the federal law for the Feds, they were trying to jack people up with a ticket for the state violation, I would assume
    I wonder that too. I don't doubt one bit what MKE is telling us, but it did strike me odd that local LEO was enforcing a federal law.
    “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” Edmund Burke

    self-pres·er·va·tion (slfprzr-vshn)
    n.
    1. Protection of oneself from harm or destruction.
    2. The instinct for individual preservation; the innate desire to stay alive.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Long gone
    Posts
    2,575
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    What does "is licensed to do so by" mean? Does it specifically mean "has been issued a paper license to do so by"? Or does it mean "is permitted to do so by"? The plain meaning of "licensed" does not necessarily mean that someone has been issued a piece of paper. If someone is ever busted under this law, but has a license from a reciprocal State or is given permission under the law, they should argue that the word "licensed" has many plain language meanings and should be construed against the government in the way that least restricts the behavior of people.

    Note: I am not advocating that anyone should put themselves in this situation just to test the law. However, I think the above argument is a winner.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>
    Eye Interesting take, I would agree with you except for the last sentence says

    "requires that, before an individual obtains 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;"

  15. #15
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    Quote Originally Posted by Orphan View Post
    Eye Interesting take, I would agree with you except for the last sentence says

    "requires that, before an individual obtains 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;"
    Well in 2000 the government attempted to argue that an Alabama permit was not valid for GFSZA because Alabama law didn't require a sheriff to conduct a background check, that argument was dismissed by the 10th circuit which wrote in the majority opinion of United States v. Tait

    The government first argues that Alabama licenses never qualify for the exception in §
    922(q)(2)(B)(ii) because Alabama does not require its licensing agents to conduct background checks on
    firearms license applicants. The § 922(q)(2)(B)(ii) exception only applies if "... the law of the State ...
    requires that ... [the sheriff] verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license." 18 U.S.C.
    § 922(q)(2)(B)(ii). By its basic terms, the statute merely requires that the Alabama sheriff ensured that Tait
    was qualified under Alabama law to receive the license. While the Alabama law is extremely lenient, it is
    nonetheless the only pertinent law
    . Alabama has chosen its laws, and these are the laws which determine
    whether the federal statute's exception applies.
    See Caron v. United States, 524 U.S. 308, 118 S.Ct. at 2011-
    12, 141 L.Ed.2d 303.
    6
    Alabama is free to set forth its own licensing requirements, and Congress chose to
    defer to those licensing requirements when it established "qualified under law" as its criterion for the
    exception to the Gun-Free School Zone Act. Therefore the government's first argument with respect to §
    922(q)(2)(B)(ii) is rejected.
    7 Emphasis Mine
    I know it's not the same as a Reciprocity or a constitutional carry state, but it does show that courts may be open to consider the argument.
    Last edited by EMNofSeattle; 11-23-2012 at 03:50 PM.
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Long gone
    Posts
    2,575
    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    Well in 2000 the government attempted to argue that an Alabama permit was not valid for GFSZA because Alabama law didn't require a sheriff to conduct a background check, that argument was dismissed by the 10th circuit which wrote in the majority opinion of United States v. Tait



    I know it's not the same as a Reciprocity or a constitutional carry state, but it does show that courts may be open to consider the argument.
    This is exactly why we have these discussions good point and cite. That would make Eye's argument more valid than I first thought.

  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by Orphan View Post
    This is exactly why we have these discussions good point and cite. That would make Eye's argument more valid than I first thought.
    The only way we'll be sure one way or the other is for a test case to wend its way through the courts.

    Volunteers?

    j/k

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Long gone
    Posts
    2,575
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    The only way we'll be sure one way or the other is for a test case to wend its way through the courts.

    Volunteers?

    j/k
    Not me, LOL

  19. #19
    Regular Member 1245A Defender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    north mason county, Washington, USA
    Posts
    4,381

    Well,,,

    parts of the gfsza that have been quoted, are from the 1990 version.
    that has been struck down and replaced with some new qualifiers in the wording.
    I think one of the changes is that the state carry permit require a background check!

    eta, nope I was wrong,,, no BG check,, see,
    http://www.gunlaws.com/Gun_Free_School_Zones_Act.pdf


    I tried,, but cant get my google foo to work in any meaningful way,,, really, I did try!!!
    Last edited by 1245A Defender; 11-23-2012 at 11:30 PM.
    EMNofSeattle wrote: Your idea of freedom terrifies me. So you are actually right. I am perfectly happy with what you call tyranny.....

    “If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.”

    Stand up for your Rights,, They have no authority on their own...

    All power is inherent in the people,
    it is their right and duty to be at all times ARMED!

  20. #20
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    Quote Originally Posted by 1245A Defender View Post
    parts of the gfsza that have been quoted, are from the 1990 version.
    that has been struck down and replaced with some new qualifiers in the wording.
    I think one of the changes is that the state carry permit require a background check!

    I tried,, but cant get my google foo to work in any meaningful way,,, really, I did try!!!
    Bob, the court case I quoted was decided in 2000 for an arrest and prosecution that occured in 1999, well after the gun control act was re-passed, the 1990 version was struck, and it was repassed in 1995, the only change they made was to add a "juristictional hook" by now mandating the firearm "move in interstate commerce" which of course the feds will claim is any gun...

    It's bad law, but the cite I gave is valid.
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Chickasha, OK
    Posts
    1

    Speaking of Guns and Schools....

    Speaking of guns and schools... http://www.chickashanow.com/?single=...5_10%3A27%3A01


    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    Bob, the court case I quoted was decided in 2000 for an arrest and prosecution that occured in 1999, well after the gun control act was re-passed, the 1990 version was struck, and it was repassed in 1995, the only change they made was to add a "juristictional hook" by now mandating the firearm "move in interstate commerce" which of course the feds will claim is any gun...

    It's bad law, but the cite I gave is valid.

  22. #22
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Ashland, KY
    Posts
    1,847
    I find this amusing:

    (1)The Congress finds and declares that—

    (A)crime, particularly crime involving drugs and guns, is a pervasive, nationwide problem;

    (B)crime at the local level is exacerbated by the interstate movement of drugs, guns, and criminal gangs;

    (C)firearms and ammunition move easily in interstate commerce and have been found in increasing numbers in and around schools, as documented in numerous hearings in both the Committee on the Judiciary [3] the House of Representatives and the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate;

    (D)in fact, even before the sale of a firearm, the gun, its component parts, ammunition, and the raw materials from which they are made have considerably moved in interstate commerce;

    (E)while criminals freely move from State to State, ordinary citizens and foreign visitors may fear to travel to or through certain parts of the country due to concern about violent crime and gun violence, and parents may decline to send their children to school for the same reason;

    (F)the occurrence of violent crime in school zones has resulted in a decline in the quality of education in our country;

    (G)this decline in the quality of education has an adverse impact on interstate commerce and the foreign commerce of the United States;

    (H)States, localities, and school systems find it almost impossible to handle gun-related crime by themselves—even States, localities, and school systems that have made strong efforts to prevent, detect, and punish gun-related crime find their efforts unavailing due in part to the failure or inability of other States or localities to take strong measures; and

    (I)the Congress has the power, under the interstate commerce clause and other provisions of the Constitution, to enact measures to ensure the integrity and safety of the Nation’s schools by enactment of this subsection.

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Really? This entire section is completely ignorant and baseless. Crime is schools has become much worse after this law was passed!

    The decline in education has NOTHING to do with firearms, and everything to do with the education system of this country.

    States and school systems find it "almost impossible" to handle gun-related crime? Really? Says who? I don't believe Kentucky has a problem with handling gun-related crime, or the majority of other states with liberal or non-existant firearm law. The states with strict gun-control do appear to have a problem with gun-related crime. I wonder why that is?

    They are saying that EVERY firearm moves in interstate commerce, therefore EVERY firearm is covered under this statute. Really? How can this sh*t be constitutional? There are companies that develop and manufacture every part in their firearms, and they are in only ONE state. If those firearms do not leave the state then they have not been part of interstate commerce. They are saying ammunition is PART of the firearm! This is ridiculous! I'd like to hear that argument in court.

    Crime involving guns is a nation-wide problem? Really? Crime involving guns has steadily declined over the years, so this is another false claim. Also, gun crime wouldn't be anywhere near what it is if we removed the 5 most restrictive states from the gun-crime rate. More restrictions on law-abiding citizens means more crime!

    Congress has the power to enforce this statute under the commerce clause? NOT! They have the authority to regulate trade between the states and with other countries; nowhere does it say they can regulate individual items simply because they moved from one state to another. Regulating trade between states is much different than regulating products because they were moved among the states! The justices MUST have been paid off to give the commerce clause such broad interpretations.

    This entire statute is ridiculous!

    Anyone know where to find the definitions of the code, because I can't find them where they normally are. "License" has many definitions, and I agree with Eye95: what would be conisdered a license?
    Last edited by KYGlockster; 12-15-2012 at 07:36 PM.
    "I never in my life seen a Kentuckian without a gun..."-Andrew Jackson

    "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined."-Patrick Henry; speaking of protecting the rights of an armed citizenry.

Posting Permissions

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