Results 1 to 25 of 25

Thread: School safety zone

  1. #1
    Regular Member rast1971's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    MANSFIELD
    Posts
    22

    School safety zone

    Trying to find out info on school safety zones. From my understanding you cant carry within 1000 feet of a school. In the picture below show my neighborhood, and how close i live to a school ( big building bottom right). Now is it 1000 feet from the school or the school property? The field north of the school is part of the school property. The reason i ask is that me and the family often take walks around the neighborhood and i have been doing this unarmed, but would like to carry. I open carry due to not having a ccw so if i do carry i fear that LEO's will be called and i might be in violation of the law. Thanks for any info.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	school.jpg 
Views:	146 
Size:	102.9 KB 
ID:	10840

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    ohio
    Posts
    73
    It's time to get your permit.
    You may live a house or two away and have a justifiable reason to walk past the school but a permit tells the officer you are not a scumbag right away.
    Barring that:
    I wouldn't walk past during pick up or drop off. Too many spazoid parents with cell phones.
    Having your wife and kids with you soften your looks too.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by rast1971 View Post
    Trying to find out info on school safety zones. From my understanding you cant carry within 1000 feet of a school. In the picture below show my neighborhood, and how close i live to a school ( big building bottom right). Now is it 1000 feet from the school or the school property? The field north of the school is part of the school property. The reason i ask is that me and the family often take walks around the neighborhood and i have been doing this unarmed, but would like to carry. I open carry due to not having a ccw so if i do carry i fear that LEO's will be called and i might be in violation of the law. Thanks for any info.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	school.jpg 
Views:	146 
Size:	102.9 KB 
ID:	10840
    By my reading of the law, the zone is within 1000' of the grounds. There is an exemption for private property. You can carry on your property all you want, even if you share a property line with the school.

  4. #4
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,726
    Quote Originally Posted by samkent View Post
    It's time to get your permit.
    You may live a house or two away and have a justifiable reason to walk past the school but a permit tells the officer you are not a scumbag right away.
    Barring that:
    I wouldn't walk past during pick up or drop off. Too many spazoid parents with cell phones.
    Having your wife and kids with you soften your looks too.
    Having a Ohio conceal license is of no help.

    18 USC 922(q)(2)
    (A) 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.
    (B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the possession of a firearm—
    (i) on private property not part of school grounds;
    (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;
    What states issues a license to poses a firearm????

    Ohio does not issue licenses to poses firearms.

    The federal statute is unconstitutional in of itself. It violates the second amendment; converting a right into a privilege. And the U.S. Supreme Court has never ruled on the statute. And one appeals court out west has, but i think it was a drug case, selling drugs in a school zone.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    And what did that court say? Is that ruling being appealed?


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>

  6. #6
    Regular Member JustaShooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    NE Ohio
    Posts
    728
    Quote Originally Posted by rast1971 View Post
    Trying to find out info on school safety zones. From my understanding you cant carry within 1000 feet of a school. In the picture below show my neighborhood, and how close i live to a school ( big building bottom right). Now is it 1000 feet from the school or the school property? The field north of the school is part of the school property. The reason i ask is that me and the family often take walks around the neighborhood and i have been doing this unarmed, but would like to carry. I open carry due to not having a ccw so if i do carry i fear that LEO's will be called and i might be in violation of the law. Thanks for any info.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	school.jpg 
Views:	146 
Size:	102.9 KB 
ID:	10840
    According to 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(25) the term "school zone" means—

    (A) in, or on the grounds of, a public, parochial or private school; or

    (B) within a distance of 1,000 feet from the grounds of a public, parochial or private school.
    As eye95 mentioned, there is an exemption for private property, and as others have mentioned, there is an exemption for a person with a license from the state:

    The Gun Free School Zones Act of 1990 (18 U.S.C. § 922(q)) states:

    (A) 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.

    (B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the possession of a firearm—

    (i) on private property not part of school grounds;

    (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;
    So, carry on private property (whether yours or someone elses) within the so-called school safety zone is fine, but not a bad idea to get your Ohio CHL and avoid the issue entirely and carry up to the school's property line.
    Last edited by JustaShooter; 09-25-2013 at 08:54 AM.
    Christian, Husband, Father
    NRA Life Member
    NRA Certified Range Safety Officer
    NRA Certified Pistol & Rifle Instructor

    Anything I post in these forums is my personal opinion formed by my own interpretation of the topic.
    IANAL and anything I say is not intended to be nor should it be taken as legal advice.

  7. #7
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,726
    Quote Originally Posted by JustaShooter View Post
    According to [URL="http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/921(a)(25).html"]So, carry on private property (whether yours or someone elses) within the so-called school safety zone is fine, but not a bad idea to get your Ohio CHL and avoid the issue entirely and carry up to the school's property line.
    Absolutely incorrect.

    (18 U.S.C. § 922(q)
    (A) 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.

    (B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the possession of a firearm—

    (i) on private property not part of school grounds;

    (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;
    It is a license to POSSESS a firearm not a license to carry.

  8. #8
    Regular Member JustaShooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    NE Ohio
    Posts
    728
    Quote Originally Posted by color of law View Post
    Absolutely incorrect.
    I disagree.

    Quote Originally Posted by color of law View Post
    It is a license to POSSESS a firearm not a license to carry.
    That's not how I read it, nor is that how anyone else I know reads it, including (at least) one lawyer I know of. But you are certainly entitled to your opinion, and are free to act upon it. I regularly act upon my understanding of the law that my Ohio CHL grants me an exception to the Federal GFSZ, and at one point I even had an exemption to the Ohio version of the same for the school my son was attending. But hey, you believe what you like.
    Christian, Husband, Father
    NRA Life Member
    NRA Certified Range Safety Officer
    NRA Certified Pistol & Rifle Instructor

    Anything I post in these forums is my personal opinion formed by my own interpretation of the topic.
    IANAL and anything I say is not intended to be nor should it be taken as legal advice.

  9. #9
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,726
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    And what did that court say? Is that ruling being appealed?
    United States v. Danks, 221 F.3d 1037 (8th Cir. 1999)
    http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/...1/1037/526300/

    I will amend my statement. There are a couple of other appeal court cases.
    http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCOURT...cr-00332-0.pdf
    U.S. v. Danks, 221 F.3d 1037, 1039 (8th Cir. 1999) (finding that the amended statute is constitutional because it “contains language that ensures, on a case-by-case basis, that the firearm in question affects interstate commerce.”).
    In other words, the mere fact of having a firearm in the school zone is not a crime. Possessing a firearm while conducting business (interstate commerce) in a school zone is the problem.

  10. #10
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,726
    Quote Originally Posted by JustaShooter View Post
    I disagree.

    That's not how I read it, nor is that how anyone else I know reads it, including (at least) one lawyer I know of. But you are certainly entitled to your opinion, and are free to act upon it. I regularly act upon my understanding of the law that my Ohio CHL grants me an exception to the Federal GFSZ, and at one point I even had an exemption to the Ohio version of the same for the school my son was attending. But hey, you believe what you like.
    And I know a number of attorneys. They all say the plain reading of the statute says what it says.
    ...if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State...
    License to POSSESS. Not license to carry. What part of license to possess do you not understand?

    If your attorney says otherwise, I would run from him as fast as I can.

    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 in deed have limits.

    Quoting from McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 (4 Wheat) U.S. 316, 405, 4 L.Ed.579 (1819), Chief Justice Roberts stated:
    “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.

    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?

  11. #11
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,726
    eye95, please note that the Jason Hall case is an Alabama district court case.
    http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCOURT...cr-00332-0.pdf
    Last edited by color of law; 09-26-2013 at 08:07 PM. Reason: fixed link

  12. #12
    Accomplished Advocate BB62's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,887
    Alabama?? There's people with guns down there??


  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    One fewer, as of about a year ago.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Northeast Ohio
    Posts
    307
    Quote Originally Posted by color of law View Post
    United States v. Danks, 221 F.3d 1037 (8th Cir. 1999)
    http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/...1/1037/526300/

    I will amend my statement. There are a couple of other appeal court cases.
    http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCOURT...cr-00332-0.pdf


    In other words, the mere fact of having a firearm in the school zone is not a crime.
    You might be able to avoid the statute's reach by carrying a Hi-Point obtained from a FFL who buys them factory direct or from an Ohio wholesaler. Or maybe a Chiappa obtained under the same circumstances. Otherwise, under the version of 18 U.S.C. §922(q) that's been effective for the last 16 years or so, if you're in possession of "a firearm that has moved in *** interstate or foreign commerce," you've got a problem. That's what the opinions in Danks and Hall state. See also, United States v. Dorsey, 418 F.3d 1038, 1046 (9th Cir. 2005). And the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio agreed with that rationale just last year, when a nasty Amish bishop overreached his authority: United States v. Mullet, 868 F.Supp.2d 618, 622-623 (N.D.Ohio 2012)
    Last edited by Werz; 09-25-2013 at 08:25 PM.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Northeast Ohio
    Posts
    307
    Quote Originally Posted by color of law View Post
    And I know a number of attorneys. They all say the plain reading of the statute says what it says.

    ...if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State...
    License to POSSESS. Not license to carry. What part of license to possess do you not understand?

    If your attorney says otherwise, I would run from him as fast as I can.
    A license to possess a firearm is subsumed in a license to carry a handgun concealed, since one cannot carry a concealed handgun without possessing a firearm.

    I know hundreds of attorneys, and I cannot think of any rational* ones who would interpret that differently.



    * I do know a few who might not qualify in that category.

  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by Werz View Post
    You might be able to avoid the statute's reach by carrying a Hi-Point obtained from a FFL who buys them factory direct or from an Ohio wholesaler. Or maybe a Chiappa obtained under the same circumstances. Otherwise, under the version of 18 U.S.C. §922(q) that's been effective for the last 16 years or so, if you're in possession of "a firearm that has moved in *** interstate or foreign commerce," you've got a problem. That's what the opinions in Danks and Hall state. See also, United States v. Dorsey, 418 F.3d 1038, 1046 (9th Cir. 2005). And the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio agreed with that rationale just last year, when a nasty Amish bishop overreached his authority: United States v. Mullet, 868 F.Supp.2d 618, 622-623 (N.D.Ohio 2012)
    I don't know how this affects the law, but Chiappas come disassembled from Italy to Dayton and are assembled there. They technically are not firearms until the Dayton plant does its thing.

  17. #17
    Regular Member JustaShooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    NE Ohio
    Posts
    728
    Quote Originally Posted by Werz View Post
    A license to possess a firearm is subsumed in a license to carry a handgun concealed, since one cannot carry a concealed handgun without possessing a firearm.

    I know hundreds of attorneys, and I cannot think of any rational* ones who would interpret that differently.



    * I do know a few who might not qualify in that category.
    Thank you Werz, for stating that in a much better way than what I was about to.
    Christian, Husband, Father
    NRA Life Member
    NRA Certified Range Safety Officer
    NRA Certified Pistol & Rifle Instructor

    Anything I post in these forums is my personal opinion formed by my own interpretation of the topic.
    IANAL and anything I say is not intended to be nor should it be taken as legal advice.

  18. #18
    Regular Member rast1971's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    MANSFIELD
    Posts
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by Werz View Post
    You might be able to avoid the statute's reach by carrying a Hi-Point obtained from a FFL who buys them factory direct or from an Ohio wholesaler.
    Well i do have a Hi-Point 45 that i bought at fin in ashland so that is covered. but im still not sure about carrying around my hood. i wonder if it counts that it is not a full time school but a learning center that kids are only at about 3 times a month, mainly used for offices. thanks for all the replies, dint mean to stir up the hornets nest.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Northeast Ohio
    Posts
    307
    Quote Originally Posted by rast1971 View Post
    Well i do have a Hi-Point 45 that i bought at fin in ashland so that is covered. but im still not sure about carrying around my hood. i wonder if it counts that it is not a full time school but a learning center that kids are only at about 3 times a month, mainly used for offices. thanks for all the replies, dint mean to stir up the hornets nest.
    In the "real world," you'll be a lot safer open-carrying in that area if you have an Ohio concealed handgun license than if you can somehow demonstrate that you have a firearm which has not moved in interstate commerce. If you don't have a CHL, I strongly recommend getting one. Depending on where you are in that area, you could encounter MPD or RCSO, but understand that neither agency is in charge of enforcing federal law. Anyone who is authorized to enforce it will probably not be interested in pursuing the matter.

  20. #20
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,726
    Quote Originally Posted by Werz View Post
    A license to possess a firearm is subsumed in a license to carry a handgun concealed, since one cannot carry a concealed handgun without possessing a firearm.

    I know hundreds of attorneys, and I cannot think of any rational* ones who would interpret that differently.



    * I do know a few who might not qualify in that category.
    Tell that to an U.S. Attorney. Ive observed many AUSAs that lack rational thinking ability. Not to mention a few Ohio attorneys that work for the state.
    http://supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/doc...-ohio-4165.pdf

    It's rational thinking that a privilege to conceal a firearm affords one the "right" to carry a firearm within a 1,000 ft. of a school? But, it's not rational thinking that a Constitutional right to open carry a firearm affords one the "privilege" to carry a firearm within a 1,000 ft. of a school?

  21. #21
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,726
    United States v. Danks, 221 F.3d 1037 (8th Cir. 1999) and related cases are contrary to the findings in Lopez.

    United States v. Danks
    [S]ection 922(q) contains language that ensures, on a case-by-case basis, that the firearm in question affects interstate commerce. We hold that the amended Act is a constitutional exercise of Congress's Commerce Clause power.
    Lopez:
    We conclude, consistent with the great weight of our case law, that the proper test requires an analysis of whether the regulated activity "substantially affects" interstate commerce.

    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.

    To uphold the Government's contentions here [that §922(q) is valid because possession of a firearm in a local school zone does indeed substantially affect interstate commerce], 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.

    Hodel, 452 U. S., at 311 ("[S]imply because Congress may conclude that a particular activity substantially affects interstate commerce does not necessarily make it so"
    Again as Lopez made clear, the mere fact of having a firearm in the school zone is not a crime. Possessing a firearm while conducting business (interstate commerce) in a school zone is the problem.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    17
    Color of Law, check out-->
    United States v Smith (2005)
    http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-1st-circuit/1379992.html
    This case says that the mere movement of the gun's component parts in Interstate Commerce is enough to satisfy the jurisdictional element needed for conviction, does it not?

    Although the Supreme Court has not ruled on the enforceability of the
    revised Federal GFSZA; the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has. They
    specifically reviewed the changes made by Congress following the SCOTUS
    decision in United States v Lopez and they found the amended version to
    be constitutional in 2005.

    See United States v Dorsey.

    In 2007, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
    actually upheld a conviction for a gun that a woman had stored in her
    home. Her home just happened to be within 1000 feet of a school, and it
    happened to be excluded from the "private property" exception because
    it was part of a housing project.

    See United States v Belen Nieves-Castano
    http://www.leagle.com/decision/20071077480F3d597_11074

    Here are links to a few more federal convictions that were upheld under
    the current Federal GFSZA. I realize they're not dealing with the
    Ohio law, but I'm sure they would be useful if you ever get a
    chance to challenge the Federal GFSZA.

    United States v Danks (1999)

    United States v Tait (2000)

    United States v Haywood (2003)

    United States v Smith (2005)

    United States v Weekes (2007)

    United States v Benally (2007)

    United States v Cruz-Rodriguez (2008)

    ____________

    In addition, here is a letter from the BATF that confirms that your Ohio CCW PERMIT does not exempt you from the GFSZ unless you are in Ohio.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ba...za1995_ccw.pdf

    So if you have an Ohio resident CCW permit, you are NOT exempted from the GFSZ when you CCW in any other state than Ohio.

    There is significant pressure NOT to make this information public because it would upset the applecart, but most people don't know they are at risk of being convicted of a felony for the GFSZ statute when they carry with their permits in states other than that which issued the permit.

    Of course I'm sure all CCW permit holders trust the government to use its discretion and not prosecute you for something like that (sarcasm)
    _______________

    Here are the updated links to the Federal GFSZA Convictions. I have been unable to locate the United States v Benally Case.

    United States v Danks (1999)
    http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-8th-circuit/1296266.html

    United States v Tait (2000)
    (Attempted prosecution of an Alabama permit holder)
    http://openjurist.org/202/f3d/1320/united-states-v-tait

    United States v Haywood (2003)
    http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-3rd-circuit/1270681.html

    United States v Dorsey (2005) (Upheld the revised law as constitutional)
    http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1067767.html

    United States v Smith (2005)
    http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-1st-circuit/1379992.html
    This case says that the mere movement of the gun's component parts in Interstate Commerce is enough to satisfy the jurisdictional element needed for conviction.

    United States v Nieves-Castaño (2007)
    http://www.leagle.com/decision/20071077480F3d597_11074
    A woman was convicted for having a gun in her home; which happened to be within 1000ft of a school.

    United States v Weekes (2007)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Un...es_gfsza95.pdf

    United States v Benally (2007) I have been unable to find an active link to this case.

    United States v Cruz-Rodriguez (2008)
    http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-1st-circuit/1166100.html
    Last edited by glockowner; 09-26-2013 at 11:39 PM.

  23. #23
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,726
    If your asking me to fix stupid, I don't have that power.

    There are thousands of cases in the courts of appeal that decide entirely opposite of the SCOTUS rulings.

    And there are thousands of cases in the courts of appeal that contradict other courts of appeal.

    Ask any attorney about the hours wasted searching through cases to find a case that says what he wants it to say. In other words, for every case that says white you will usually find a case that says black.

    The court system has nothing to do with justice and usually decides for the government.

    Hell, conceal carry guys despise open carriers and vice versa.
    Last edited by color of law; 09-27-2013 at 01:11 AM.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Northeast Ohio
    Posts
    307
    Quote Originally Posted by color of law View Post
    United States v. Danks, 221 F.3d 1037 (8th Cir. 1999) and related cases are contrary to the findings in Lopez.
    You cited and linked to Danks. You cited and linked to Hall, although you initially referred to it as an "appeals court" case, whereas it is a district court opinion overruling a motion to dismiss. It does tend to make one wonder whether you actually read the opinions before you cited them. In any event, Lopez was decided in 1995, based on the old version of 18 U.S.C. § 922(q). In 1999, in the 8th Circuit, Danks - which you cited - held that Congress had fixed 18 U.S.C. § 922(q) by adding the jurisdictional element that the firearm "has moved in or *** otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce." In 2005, in the 9th Circuit, Dorsey agreed with the analysis of Danks: Congress fixed § 922(q) by adding the jurisdictional element. And later in 2005, in the Southern District of Alabama, 5th Circuit, Hall - which, once again, you cited - overruled a motion to dismiss a charge under § 922(q), agreeing with Danks and Dorsey that Congress had fixed that subsection. Even last year, the Northern District of Ohio (we're in the 6th Circuit), agreed with that rationale in Mullet. After all those years, if the United States Supreme Court thought all those decisions were wrong, I'm pretty sure we would have seen certiorari granted and all those erroneous opinions reversed, particularly in light of the high court's decisions in Heller and McDonald. You can believe what you wish; that doesn't mean that anyone - including the United States Supreme Court - will agree.

    Quote Originally Posted by color of law View Post
    Again as Lopez made clear, the mere fact of having a firearm in the school zone is not a crime.
    True. However, "the mere fact of having a firearm in the school zone," plus the fact that the firearm has moved in interstate or foreign commerce, does constitute a crime under 18 U.S.C. § 922(q) as it now exists.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Northeast Ohio
    Posts
    307
    Quote Originally Posted by color of law View Post
    Ive observed many AUSAs that lack rational thinking ability. Not to mention a few Ohio attorneys that work for the state.
    And based on what I overheard in Oberlin, BB62 can attest to the fact that people will not always interpret words the way you think they will.

Posting Permissions

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