• 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.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • 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.

Open carry question and GFSZ

Amicus

Regular Member
Joined
May 3, 2013
Messages
33
Location
WA State
I have a question about open carry and GFSZ's. If I'm open carrying a pistol made in Washington state and purchased in WA, without a CPL in a Washington state school zone, wouldn't a violation of the GFSZ Act be a non sequitur since the firearm hasn't traveled in interstate commerce?
 
Last edited:

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
I have a question about open carry and GFSZ's. If I'm open carrying a 1911 pistol made in Washington state and purchased in WA, without a CPL in a Washington state school zone, wouldn't a violation of the GFSZ Act be a non sequitur since the firearm hasn't traveled in interstate commerce?

A question asked in many sundry forms before. While the present law is likely unconstituional and seldom (ever?) prosecuted as a primary offense at the federal level, it is the law.

It is the BATFE position that some part, material and/or substance have been involved via interstate commerce.
http://www.atf.gov/files/publications/download/p/atf-p-5300-4.pdf
 

muggins

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2012
Messages
17
Location
Bonney Lake, WA
I guess it all comes down to the very vague and wide-open Part A (bolded by me):

It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.

Since the initial GFZA that was passed was ruled unconstitutional and they changed it to specify it only pertains to firearms that have been active in interstate or foreign commerce. most of the circuit courts have upheld the revised version.


So, ultimately it comes down to how does one define whether a firearm has "moved in or otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce". That is an incredibly broad statement, and given the very wide-open interpretation of the Commerce Clause and the various presidence-setting rulings by the Supreme Court, I think one would have a very difficult time arguing that even a firearm manufactured solely in washington does not "move in or otherwise affect interstate or foreign commerce". When the Court has ruled (in Wickard v. Filburn) that growing wheat on one's own land purely for one's own consumption is something congress can legislate under the Commerce Clause because the whole of a bunch of individual farmers growing their own wheat could potentially impact interstate commerce...

I imagine they would also make the argument that the materials used to manufacture the firearm were not 100% sourced from Washington so purchasing those materials affected interstate or foreign commerce, or that the machines that were used to manufacture the firearm did, or that any number of other justifications make it so that that firearm in some way (directly or indirectly) affects interstate or foreign commerce.
 
Last edited:

Amicus

Regular Member
Joined
May 3, 2013
Messages
33
Location
WA State
So, essentially interstate commerce is really no more than a perversion of the "Butterfly Effect". I suppose the gov. could argue the minutia Ad nauseam; even to the point of the use of lubricant place on the firearm for proper function being a petroleum distillate from the Middle East.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
So, essentially interstate commerce is really no more than a perversion of the "Butterfly Effect". I suppose the gov. could argue the minutia Ad nauseam; even to the point of the use of lubricant place on the firearm for proper function being a petroleum distillate from the Middle East.
I see that you are a quick study.

BTW - forgot my manners - welcome to the forum.
 

MSG Laigaie

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2011
Messages
3,239
Location
Philipsburg, Montana
So, essentially interstate commerce is really no more than a perversion of the "Butterfly Effect".

I see that you are a quick study. BTW - forgot my manners - welcome to the forum.

It is always nice to welcome someone new from Washington State. Make life easy for yourself and pick up a CPL. It deletes the load/unload problem getting in and out of vehicles. Depending upon where in Wa you are, stop by for a coffee at your local meet. Again , Welcome to OCDO
 

Amicus

Regular Member
Joined
May 3, 2013
Messages
33
Location
WA State
Thanks for the welcome. I've already had the pleasure of meeting at least one of you.

I've only been in WA a few months so I'm trying to get a grip on the laws. I moved from MT where we didn't have to jump through too many hoops over concealed carry, school zone, etc. Looks like a CPL is in my future.
 

rapgood

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2012
Messages
598
Location
Stanwood, WA
Thanks for the welcome. I've already had the pleasure of meeting at least one of you.
Welcome to OCDO and Washington.

I've only been in WA a few months so I'm trying to get a grip on the laws. I moved from MT where we didn't have to jump through too many hoops over concealed carry, school zone, etc. Looks like a CPL is in my future.
Good choice.
 

kparker

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2006
Messages
1,326
Location
Tacoma, Washington, USA
So, essentially interstate commerce is really no more than a perversion of the "Butterfly Effect". I suppose the gov. could argue the minutia Ad nauseam; even to the point of the use of lubricant place on the firearm for proper function being a petroleum distillate from the Middle East.

You got it! Which is why IMO our current commerce-clause jurisprudence is just as corrupting to the court's legitimacy as is RvW.

How we get back to a decent faithful reading of that clause is left as an exercise for the reader...
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
Antique firearms are not listed in the GFSZA, whether they have moved in interstate commerce or not. Modern replicas are antique firearms by federal definitions. Most of the time most people just do not concern themselves with GFSZA, the feds have not been pushing it. If SCOTUS changes I suspect that the enforcement will change. I always have one antique firearm with me, if need be I can lock my cartridge firearm up in the car and just carry the one and still feel confident I can defend myself.
 

Amicus

Regular Member
Joined
May 3, 2013
Messages
33
Location
WA State
Maybe some of you could clarify another question while we're at it. Why does the Centennial Trail website in Spokane state "no firearms"?
 

Jeff Hayes

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
2,569
Location
Long gone
Maybe some of you could clarify another question while we're at it. Why does the Centennial Trail website in Spokane state "no firearms"?

The no firearms is null and void as if it does not exist per RCW 9.41.290 I will call the Centennial Trail Ranger Audra Sims @ 509-465-5064 on Monday to get it changed.

We keep finding this every where even though State law prohibits it, its mostly ignorance with a sprinkling of arrogance in some cases. I and several others are still dealing with the Spokane Public Facilities District and the City of Spokane on unlawful laws.

Jeff
 
Last edited:
Top