Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: The Federal GFSZ act,,, No Permits work in Vermont...

  1. #1
    Regular Member 1245A Defender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    north mason county, Washington, USA
    Posts
    4,381

    The Federal GFSZ act,,, No Permits work in Vermont...

    As I write this, I see two viewers on line here.
    I wonder if they are visitors or if they are members.
    I wonder if they are Vermonterianions?
    It seems no one has posted in this state for about two months.

    OT,,, Many folks in the other 49 states often talk about the bugaboo surounding the danger of carrying
    within that 1000 foot limit described in the GSZA act,,, unless they have that state issued permit to carry.
    I always tell them that, if it was really a thing that they needed to be worried about,
    that they should read about all they folks that get arrested in Vermont!
    Because, absolutly NOBODY in Vermont can have ANY KIND of state issued permit,
    that would exempt them from the bugaboo of passing within 1000 feet of a school in the state of Vermont!

    Sooo I have not heard of any, and they have not checked or reported hearing of any!
    Have any of my friends in Vermit heard of anybody arrested for the simple crime of
    Just carrying a gun within the 1000 foot bugaboo area of a Federal GFSZ in the state of Vermont???
    Last edited by 1245A Defender; 05-11-2013 at 10:51 AM.
    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!

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Michigan, USA
    Posts
    902
    There are actually 2 types of licenses in Vermont for carrying firearms.

    The two types of Firearms Permits are

    1. For private investigators
    2. For security guards

    Either of these licenses would meet the requirement; however, they are costly and time consuming to obtain.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Gary, Indiana, USA
    Posts
    518

    Re: The Federal GFSZ act,,, No Permits work in Vermont...

    What about a nonresident who has a permit from their home state? Certainly they'd be exempt, right? And also, just how tightly is this law enforced? I couldn't really imagine that someone inside the 1000-foot halo would be treated any more harshly than some who is an inch outside of it (assuming that the distance is ever actually measured).

    Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Michigan, USA
    Posts
    902
    Quote Originally Posted by tattedupboy View Post
    What about a nonresident who has a permit from their home state? Certainly they'd be exempt, right? And also, just how tightly is this law enforced? I couldn't really imagine that someone inside the 1000-foot halo would be treated any more harshly than some who is an inch outside of it (assuming that the distance is ever actually measured).

    Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
    You need a license issued by the state where the school zone is located. If the school zone is right on the New Hampshire and Vermont border and the school zone extends into both states, you would need a license from both states to carry inside the school zone depending on what side of the state line you were on.

    The law is not enforced. In fact, it can't be enforced by state or local LEO's. Most of them probably don't even know about it. I don't think the Feds want to charge anyone with this law since the buffer zone would most likely be declare unconstitutional in a post-Heller world.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Johnson City, TN
    Posts
    252
    Quote Originally Posted by tattedupboy View Post
    What about a nonresident who has a permit from their home state? Certainly they'd be exempt, right? And also, just how tightly is this law enforced? I couldn't really imagine that someone inside the 1000-foot halo would be treated any more harshly than some who is an inch outside of it (assuming that the distance is ever actually measured).

    Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
    Let me state upfront that, officially, I cannot recommend carrying a handgun within 1,000 feet of a school unless (1) you have a permit from the state with the school zone, (2) you transport it unloaded and locked in a case, or (3) you meet a different exemption.

    That being said, every case (and there are only a few) of someone being prosecuted and convicted for carrying within 1,000 of a school, but not on the school property, that I am aware of had some aggravating factor involved. The aggravating factors include, but are not limited to: (1) the person had prior felony conviction, (2) the person negligently discharged the firearm within the 1,000 foot zone (for some reason, the person was not convicted for negligent discharge; but the GFSZ charge stuck), or (3) the weapon was a machine gun. I am not aware of any cases where a person was convicted under the GFSZ for simply going about their normal business while carrying a handgun within 1,000 feet of a school, without some aggravating factor.
    "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty."
    "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
    "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." Ben Franklin

  6. #6
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,732
    JMHO

    18 USC 922(q) is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has made that clear in Lopez and has reaffirmed that in their resent Health Care law decision (National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. ___ (2012)) explaining the commerce clause. The commerce clause cannot be used to get around the Bill of Rights.

    18 USC 922 dealing with guns in school zones is, as Lopez made clear, not in commerce.

    It is well settled that Congress has broad authority to regulate interstate commerce, but that authority is not unlimited. The Supreme Court stated in Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1, 3, 6 L.Ed. 23 (1824), “The power to regulate commerce is general, and has no limitations but such as are prescribed in the constitution itself.” The principle that Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce is limited by the Constitution was reiterated in United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 552-116 S.Ct. 1624, 131 L.Ed2d 626 (1995), where the Supreme reaffirmed Gibbons with the following statement:

    We start with first principles. The Constitution creates a Federal Government of enumerated powers. See Art. I, § 8. As James Madison wrote: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite." The Federalist No. 45, pp. 292-293 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961). This constitutionally mandated division of authority "was adopted by the Framers to ensure protection of our fundamental liberties." Gregory v .Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452, 458 (1991) (internal quotation marks omitted). "Just as the separation and independence of the coordinate branches of the Federal Government serve to prevent the accumulation of excessive power in any one branch, a healthy balance of power between the States and the Federal Government will reduce the risk of tyranny and abuse from either front." Ibid.
    The Constitution delegates to Congress the power "[t]o regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." Art. I, § 8, cl. 3. The Court, through Chief Justice Marshall, first defined the nature of Congress' commerce power in Gibbons v.Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 189-190 (1824):
    "Commerce, undoubtedly, is traffic, but it is something more: it is intercourse. It describes the commercial intercourse between nations, and parts of nations, in all its branches, and is regulated by prescribing rules for carrying on that intercourse."
    The commerce power "is the power to regulate; that is, to prescribe the rule by which commerce is to be governed. This power, like all others vested in congress, is complete in itself, may be exercised to its utmost extent, and acknowledges no limitations, other than are prescribed in the constitution." Id., at 196. The Gibbons Court, however, acknowledged that limitations on the commerce power are inherent in the very language of the Commerce Clause.
    Again, National Federation of Independent Business v. Selelius, No. 11-393, Slip Opinion, June 28, 2012 confirms the principle that the interstate commerce powers of Congress does indeed have limits.

    Quoting from McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 (4 Wheat) U.S. 316, 405, 4 L.Ed.579 (1819), Chief Justice Roberts stated:
    Quote:
    “The Federal Government ‘is acknowledged by all to be one of enumerated powers.’ Ibid. That is, rather than granting general authority to perform all the conceivable functions of government, the Constitution lists, or enumerates, the Federal Government’s powers.” See page 2 of Slip Opinion.

    Further affirmation of the limitations of Bill of Right on Congress regarding the commerce powers is explained on page 3 of the Slip Opinion.

    “Today, the restrictions on government power foremost in many Americans’ minds are likely to be affirmative prohibitions, such as contained in the Bill of Rights. These affirmative prohibitions come into play, however, only where the Government possesses authority to act in the first place. If no enumerated power authorizes Congress to pass a certain law, that law may not be enacted, even if it would not violate any of the express prohibitions in the Bill of Rights or elsewhere in the Constitution.
    Indeed, the Constitution did not initially include a Bill of Rights at least partly because the Framers felt the enumeration of powers sufficed to restrain the Government. As Alexander Hamilton put it, ‘the Constitution is itself, in every rational sense, and to every useful purpose, A BILL OF RIGHTS.’ The Federalist No. 84, p. 515 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961). And when the Bill of Rights was ratified, it made express what the enumeration of powers necessarily implied: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution . . . are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” U. S. Const., Amdt. 10. The Federal Government has expanded dramatically over the past two centuries, but it still must show that a constitutional grant of power authorizes each of its actions. See, e.g., United States v. Comstock, 560 U. S. ___ (2010).”
    Congress fixed nothing. Lopez made it clear the commerce clause will not fly under any circumstances.
    United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549.
    Held: The Act exceeds Congress’ Commerce Clause authority. First, although this Court has upheld a wide variety of congressional Acts regulating intrastate economic activity that substantially affected interstate commerce, the possession of a gun in a local school zone is in no sense an economic activity that might, through repetition elsewhere, have such a substantial effect on interstate commerce...

    To uphold the Government’s contention that § 922(q) is justified because firearms possession in a local school zone does indeed substantially affect interstate commerce would require this Court to pile inference upon inference in a manner that would bid fair to convert congressional Commerce Clause authority to a general police power of the sort held only by the States.
    Some will tell you that federal law - 18 USC 922(q) disallows open carry in school zones. And the statute does say that. But, since Congress amended 18 USC 922(q) there has been one court that I know of that has upheld Congresses changes; United States v. Danks, 221 F.3d 1037 (8th Cir. 1999). Its decision is contrary to what Lopez said.

    Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining & Reclamation Assn., Inc., 452 U.S. 264 (1981), United States v. Lopez, 514 U. S. 549 (1995) and Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005) all made it clear that under the Commerce Clause Congress is required to show a tangible link to commerce, not a mere conceivable rational relation. “[S]imply because Congress may conclude that a particular activity substantially affects interstate commerce does not necessarily make it so.” See Lopez, supra, at 557, n. 2 (quoting Hodel, supra, at 311 (Rehnquist, J., concurring in judgment).

    The Lopez Court made it clear that the Commerce Clause would not carry the day when it comes to carrying a gun in a school zone.

    The possession of a gun in a local school zone is in no sense an economic activity that might, through repetition elsewhere, substantially affect any sort of interstate commerce. Respondent was a local student at a local school; there is no indication that he had recently moved in interstate commerce, and there is no requirement that his possession of the firearm have any concrete tie to interstate commerce.
    To uphold the Government's contentions here, we would have to pile inference upon inference in a manner that would bid fair to convert congressional authority under the Commerce Clause to a general police power of the sort retained by the States. Admittedly, some of our prior cases have taken long steps down that road, giving great deference to congressional action. See supra, at 556-558. The broad language in these opinions has suggested the possibility of additional expansion, but we decline here to proceed any further. To do so would require us to conclude that the Constitution's enumeration of powers does not presuppose something not enumerated, cf. Gibbons v. Ogden, supra, at 195, and that there never will be a distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local, cf. Jones & Laughlin Steel, supra, at 30. This we are unwilling to do.
    I suggest you read Lopez yourself.

    Can anyone cite a federal case where someone has been prosecuted for just carrying a gun in a school zone since the Lopez decision?

    Just one last thing.

    In United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 558 (1995) (re: 18 U.S.C. § 922(q), the Supreme Court reiterated the “three broad categories of activity that Congress may regulate under its commerce power.” Those categories allow Congress to regulate a) the use of the channels of interstate commerce; b) the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or persons or things in interstate commerce; and c) those activities having a substantial affect on interstate commerce. The Supreme Court found the firearms regulation in Lopez was unconstitutional under the third category as the intrastate activity of possessing a gun in a school zone does not substantially affect interstate commerce.

  7. #7
    Regular Member vermonter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    341
    This has been beaten to death in another post. If you are pulled over in a GFSZ and not a person prohibited you will not be bothered. That is as per Colchester - the city that has a sign with no weapons in a GFSZ. If you are walking with an AR on the street in front of the zone you will be arrested ESPECIALLY if someone complains.

  8. #8
    State Researcher lockman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Elgin, Illinois, USA
    Posts
    1,202

    The Federal GFSZ act,,, No Permits work in Vermont...

    Quote Originally Posted by vermonter View Post
    This has been beaten to death in another post. If you are pulled over in a GFSZ and not a person prohibited you will not be bothered. That is as per Colchester - the city that has a sign with no weapons in a GFSZ. If you are walking with an AR on the street in front of the zone you will be arrested ESPECIALLY if someone complains.
    Charged with what?

Posting Permissions

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