TFred
Regular Member
This is an erroneous statement, and it is critical that the readers understand that, and why.Do you have state laws that say you can't carry in schools or something? The GFSZ law says that anyone who holds a permit to carry a weapon that was issued in the same state the school resides is allowed to carry on school grounds.
It's a classic fallacy in logical thinking: If A, then B. Not A, therefore, not B.*
This logical statement is easily demonstrated to be false:
A: Dogs.
B: Four legs.
If it's a dog, then it has four legs. (True)
If it's not a dog, then it doesn't have four legs. (False - a cow is not a dog, but it does have four legs.)
In this actual case we will use:
A: A NON-permit holder.
B: Illegal to carry in a school zone.
If you are not a permit holder, then it is illegal to carry in a school zone. (True)
If you are (not) a non-permit holder (which means you ARE a permit holder), it is NOT illegal (meaning legal) to carry in a school zone. (False)
In plain English, just because you might not be breaking the GFSZA, does not mean you are not breaking any of a number of other laws that might be on the books against carrying a gun in any or a part of the GFSZA's definition of a "school zone" (on the property or within 1,000 feet of any property line). I don't know the numbers, but I would suppose many, if not most states have their own laws against carrying a gun on school grounds. The point is, unless you do the research to ensure you are not breaking ANY law, you can't assume that compliance with the terms of one law (the GFSZA) clears the way.
TFred
* Just for completeness, the valid logical statement for this case is:
If A, then B. Not B, therefore not A.
Illustrated with dogs and legs again:
If it's a dog, then it has four legs. (True)
If it doesn't have four legs, then it's not a dog. (Also true, discounting birth defects or horrible injuries to said dog...)