School safety zone

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

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.

Click to expand...

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 ("imply because Congress may conclude that a particular activity substantially affects interstate commerce does not necessarily make it so"

Click to expand...

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.

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:Batfe2002letter_gfsza1995_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:United_States_vs_Weekes_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

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.

color of law said:

United States v. Danks, 221 F.3d 1037 (8th Cir. 1999) and related cases are contrary to the findings in Lopez.

Click to expand...

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.

color of law said:

Again as Lopez made clear, the mere fact of having a firearm in the school zone is not a crime.

Click to expand...

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.

color of law said:

Ive observed many AUSAs that lack rational thinking ability. Not to mention a few Ohio attorneys that work for the state.

Click to expand...

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.