Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 53

Thread: Open carry illegal?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    5

    Open carry illegal?

    This applies to all states, within the 1000 feet gun free school zones.

    I've just got bought my new pistol and would like to carry it in my town of Gilbert Arizona, but now I find that it would extremely difficult. This is because there are schools almost every few miles and it's hard to drive on roads around them trying to maintain the 1000 ft rule, I'm afraid that if I'm driving around and don't know the area, I might pass a school zone that I wasn't aware of. Not to mention, when I think I'm a safe distance away from the 1000ft bubble, I realize there are overlapping zones as well.

    I'm just wondering, is there a map that shows areas where open carry is illegal?
    Is there a way to tell what a 1000 ft distance (from the outer edge entrance gate or center of school) is?

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,095
    Quote Originally Posted by F1ber0ptik View Post
    This applies to all states, within the 1000 feet gun free school zones.

    I've just got bought my new pistol and would like to carry it in my town of Gilbert Arizona, but now I find that it would extremely difficult. This is because there are schools almost every few miles and it's hard to drive on roads around them trying to maintain the 1000 ft rule, I'm afraid that if I'm driving around and don't know the area, I might pass a school zone that I wasn't aware of. Not to mention, when I think I'm a safe distance away from the 1000ft bubble, I realize there are overlapping zones as well.

    I'm just wondering, is there a map that shows areas where open carry is illegal?
    Is there a way to tell what a 1000 ft distance (from the outer edge entrance gate or center of school) is?
    This law was once ruled unconstitutional. They re-wrote it adding some language that they hope would let it survive judicial scrutiny. No one has been charged under the revised law unless it was included as part of a bigger illegal operation (and only a handful at that). Those knowable of the subject suggest this is because they fear it will be ruled unconstitutional again.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Centralia, MO
    Posts
    144
    Firearm possessors licensed by the state or locality to possess the gun, whose law requires that before the person obtains a license, state or local law enforcement verify that the person is qualified to receive the license.

    I checked the law and that was one of the exemptions to the law. From what I have gathered and what others have told me, this means that if you have a CC permit it means you are exempt from the law. As for if that is true, I don't know.

    I do know that I carry openly when I go to pick up my daughter from school, I stand on the sidewalk and make sure to remain off school grounds. The school staff have seen it and ignored it, parents have ignored it, and the police drive by and don't bother me about it. There was only one time, the first time I OC'ed to the school, someone called it in and the police showed up about 40 minutes later. (Amazing response time for a call about a man with a gun at a school.) They just wanted to make sure that I remained on the sidewalk and did not step on school property, they never asked for ID and never told me that I could not carry there.

  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    We completely ignore this unconstitutional federal law in Arizona, Utah, and Nevada, and other free states. Its enforcement with us normal people is limited to states that have their own version or otherwise think it is a good law. Our free states are not among them. You have nothing to worry about. Carry on!
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  5. #5
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    http://trib.com/news/state-and-regio...9e221237e.html

    CHEYENNE — A traveler driving along Interstate 25 at Cheyenne will come within 1,000 feet of Jessup Elementary School.

    If that Wyoming driver is carrying a weapon in the vehicle without a concealed weapon permit, he or she is in violation of a little-known federal law.

    The Federal Gun Free School Zone Act of 1995 makes it a crime to possess a functional firearm on public property, such as sidewalks, roads, highways, parks or fairgrounds within 1,000 feet of the property line of any elementary, middle or high school.

    The penalty for violations is up to five years in federal prison and the permanent loss of the offender’s right to own a firearm SNIP

    The U.S. attorney’s office has not filed charges under the law for at least 15 years, spokesman John Powell said last week.

    Powell said the scenario of the I-25 driver who has a weapon in his vehicle and inadvertently breaks the law boils down to a matter of “common sense.”

    “Why would we charge anyone with that?” Powell said.
    btw, whichever group thought bringing that idea to everyone's attention by contacting the media, is an idiot.
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  6. #6
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    There has been no cases of this charge being brought up in Washington state.

    Look up your states case law and see if they prosecute for this.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    5
    I really don't know what to do about this, because I don't wan't to lose my gun rights over a petty unconstitutional law. But if it really is enforced, according to google maps, there would be these zones every 2.5-4 miles in any direction of my town. Kind of scary to think about this, but it means I can't carry in any local parks or areas approaching my house. How am I supposed to open carry if it's illegal literally ever where I go?

  8. #8
    Regular Member BrianB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    239
    It is a stupid law that I never give a second thought to when on my home turf.

    That said, allegedly, once upon a time, someone who isn't me was driving about at 1am in another state, while on vacation, carrying concealed, in a state with CCW reciprocity for their permit, trying to get back to their hotel, and made a wrong turn that put that person onto a college campus that was so big that the campus roads looked like regular public roads. At that time, that person was intensely conscious of the GFSZ act, and the unknown potential of state law issues as well, especially when a campus police cruiser was behind them for a bit as they attempted to get off said campus.

    Little wrinkle in the CCW exemption for the Federal GFSZ act is that the license/permit must have been issued by the state that the school is in. So if you're in State X, and "carrying on" a permit from State Y, even if State X honors State Y's permit, it's still a felony crime. This of course is idiotic.
    Last edited by BrianB; 10-17-2013 at 10:44 PM.

  9. #9
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by F1ber0ptik View Post
    I really don't know what to do about this, because I don't wan't to lose my gun rights over a petty unconstitutional law. But if it really is enforced, according to google maps, there would be these zones every 2.5-4 miles in any direction of my town. Kind of scary to think about this, but it means I can't carry in any local parks or areas approaching my house. How am I supposed to open carry if it's illegal literally ever where I go?
    Do you have a state concealed license if so, no worries.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  10. #10
    Regular Member BrianB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    239
    Quote Originally Posted by F1ber0ptik View Post
    I really don't know what to do about this, because I don't wan't to lose my gun rights over a petty unconstitutional law. But if it really is enforced, according to google maps, there would be these zones every 2.5-4 miles in any direction of my town. Kind of scary to think about this, but it means I can't carry in any local parks or areas approaching my house. How am I supposed to open carry if it's illegal literally ever where I go?
    I can't give you legal advice but it would seem the answer would be to get an AZ CHL. I have a non-resident AZ CHL and it was about as simple a CHL to get as I've ever gotten (I have several). Even if you're open carrying, the AZ CHL would seem to satisfy the Federal GFSZ act.

    (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;
    [Emphasis added.]

  11. #11
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    Quote Originally Posted by BrianB View Post
    ...Little wrinkle in the CCW exemption for the Federal GFSZ act is that the license/permit must have been issued by the state that the school is in. So if you're in State X, and "carrying on" a permit from State Y, even if State X honors State Y's permit, it's still a felony crime. This of course is idiotic.
    Well, that is a popular legal opinion, but still just an opinion. The exemption states: " 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;"

    Because of the use of the word "license," some legal wrangling is possible through delegation between the states.

    But again, we will probably never see a need to even attempt a defense in the free states.
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  12. #12
    Regular Member BrianB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    239
    Quote Originally Posted by MAC702 View Post
    Well, that is a popular legal opinion, but still just an opinion. The exemption states: " 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;"

    Because of the use of the word "license," some legal wrangling is possible through delegation between the states.

    But again, we will probably never see a need to even attempt a defense in the free states.
    Even if we quibble over the meaning of the word "licensed", there's still the issue of "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 logical to assume that the reference to "State or political subdivision" there refers to the same entity referenced earlier in the statute, which must be the one within which the school zone is located.

    If I'm hypothetically in Georgia, carrying on my FL CHL, and GA has reciprocity and honors my FL CHL, you could argue that GA has implicitly licensed me to do so via it's reciprocity with Florida. However Georgia law enforcement authorities certainly have not verified that I am qualified to receive the license, so the latter criteria fails.

    Of course I don't like any of this, but I think any other reading would be disingenuous.

    These days most free states aren't really interested in enforcing stupid Federal gun laws, so, like you, I would only expect this to be an issue in a commie state -- and I do my darndest to stay out of the commie states.

  13. #13
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    I agree that the argument is moot, but I would argue that a state is accepting the background check done by the other state as their verification by delegation, in essence, whether intending to do so or not for the spirit of the law, a law that is itself illegal.

    In fact, NV very specifically uses the background check intervals of the other state to determine if it will accept the other state's permit. This is the sole reason NV does not accept the FL permit, because they [EDIT: document the] background check every 7 years at renewal, which is less strict than NV's 5-year renewal/check. If a state has very liberal licensure, they will accept every state's permits, like UT does, and they therefore use the background check system of the other state, by delegation, ipso facto.

    Either of us would win in court, depending on which of us wore the more expensive suit, used bigger words in our argument, and was catching the eye of the judge.

    Now, where someone is really at the mercy of the law's lack of enforcement is if they come from a state that does not issue any form of license or permit, but simple allow their people to be truly free.
    Last edited by MAC702; 10-18-2013 at 10:53 AM.
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  14. #14
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    Quote Originally Posted by BrianB View Post
    Even if we quibble over the meaning of the word "licensed", there's still the issue of "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 logical to assume that the reference to "State or political subdivision" there refers to the same entity referenced earlier in the statute, which must be the one within which the school zone is located.

    If I'm hypothetically in Georgia, carrying on my FL CHL, and GA has reciprocity and honors my FL CHL, you could argue that GA has implicitly licensed me to do so via it's reciprocity with Florida. However Georgia law enforcement authorities certainly have not verified that I am qualified to receive the license, so the latter criteria fails.

    Of course I don't like any of this, but I think any other reading would be disingenuous.

    These days most free states aren't really interested in enforcing stupid Federal gun laws, so, like you, I would only expect this to be an issue in a commie state -- and I do my darndest to stay out of the commie states.
    well one circuit court ruled that the licensing authority only has to verify the licensee is qualified under the laws on the state issuing the license and not under federal law.

    Montana has a law.

    45-8-360. Establishment of individual licensure. In consideration that the right to keep and bear arms is protected and reserved to the people in Article II, section 12, of the Montana constitution, a person who has not been convicted of a violent, felony crime and who is lawfully able to own or to possess a firearm under the Montana constitution is considered to be individually licensed and verified by the state of Montana within the meaning of the provisions regarding individual licensure and verification in the federal Gun-Free School Zones Act.
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  15. #15
    Regular Member BrianB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    239
    Quote Originally Posted by MAC702 View Post
    In fact, NV very specifically uses the background check intervals of the other state to determine if it will accept the other state's permit. This is the sole reason NV does not accept the FL permit, because they background check every 7 years at renewal, which is less strict than NV's 5-year renewal/check.
    Perhaps a minor point but NV dropped the FL CHL because our licenses are good for 7 years, not because we only background check every 7 years. Florida background checks permit holders monthly and will revoke the permit if you are found to no longer be eligible. I think NV just didn't like the fact that, revoked or not, you'll have a card in your wallet that says it's good for 7 years (though it would fail a verification if one were done).

  16. #16
    Regular Member BrianB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    239
    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    Montana has a law.
    Thanks for the information on the Montana law. Gotta love Montana sometimes. Every state should do the same.

  17. #17
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    Quote Originally Posted by BrianB View Post
    Perhaps a minor point but NV dropped the FL CHL because our licenses are good for 7 years, not because we only background check every 7 years. Florida background checks permit holders monthly and will revoke the permit if you are found to no longer be eligible. I think NV just didn't like the fact that, revoked or not, you'll have a card in your wallet that says it's good for 7 years (though it would fail a verification if one were done).
    Yes, you are right. I should have said that's when they document the background check (post now edited.) We have a very weird system in place here that actually delegates the power to a non-profit corporation, believe it or not. They are all ex-cops who have some funny ways of doing things.
    Last edited by MAC702; 10-18-2013 at 10:54 AM.
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  18. #18
    Regular Member BrianB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    239
    Quote Originally Posted by MAC702 View Post
    Yes, you are probably right. We have a very weird system in place here that actually delegates the power to a non-profit corporation, believe it or not. They are all ex-cops who have some funny ways of doing things.
    Yeah, your Nevada Chiefs and Sheriffs Association (who makes your CCW rules) pissed me off earlier this year. I try to get out to Front Sight in Pahrump once a year or so. When they decided not to honor the FL CWP any longer I did a little research to find out the next best alternative. Although NV issues non-resident permits, the "in person" requirement is a logistical pain, so I opted for the AZ CHL which NV honored (at the time). It was something like 3 days before my trip out to NV this year when the NCSA decided to no longer honor the AZ permit, effective immediately. Thankfully I double checked the status of things the day before I left or I'd have been trotting around, carrying concealed, illegally the whole time I was there.

    As a practical matter I tend to OC when in Pahrump and like that quite a bit. I haven't OC'd in Vegas in the past because some frank conversations with LV Metro cops indicated I'd be hassled if I did. I wouldn't mind messing with cops who want to hassle me while I'm doing something legal on my home turf, but I'm not as willing to play in another jurisdiction where a protracted legal battle is a logistical nightmare.

    After they killed the AZ permit I couldn't find any other non-resident permit that I qualified for that NV honored. Since Front Sight has a NV CCW class that I can take for free, I went ahead and took it, applied in person for the NV permit, and received my permit in the mail earlier this year. When I go to Front Sight next year I'll carry openly in Pahrump, and probably CCW in Vegas. Usually I'm only in Vegas for one night -- when I stay there near the airport the night before I leave.

  19. #19
    Regular Member DCKilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Wet Side, WA
    Posts
    527
    A few months ago, my family went to a park in Tacoma, Wa for some fun with the kids. This was the first time I have visited the park. My wife failed to tell me that a school and a police station were on the adjacent properties. What did I do? Like always my wallet with my cpl and ID were left in the car. This 1000ft requirement doesn't exist in the RCW.
    Last edited by DCKilla; 10-18-2013 at 01:39 AM.

  20. #20
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    It is widely agreed that the FGFSZA is unenforceable except as a "sentence enhancement".

    OP is freaking out over nothing.


  21. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by BrianB View Post
    ...Little wrinkle in the CCW exemption for the Federal GFSZ act is that the license/permit must have been issued by the state that the school is in. So if you're in State X, and "carrying on" a permit from State Y, even if State X honors State Y's permit, it's still a felony crime. This of course is idiotic.
    Actually, the law says something to the effect, "is licensed by," not, "has a license issued by." One literal meaning of licensed is, "has permission." Since reciprocity confers permission, it could be argued (I don't know how successfully) that having a reciprocal license means one is licensed (given permission) by the reciprocating State.

    If someone is ever charged under the law, this argument should be considered.

    “Why would we charge anyone with that?” Powell said.
    Actually, he "asked."

    But, to the point, we are supposed to allow bad law to stick around, counting on the good graces of law enforcement and prosecutors not to arrest or charge us under a bad law??? I know the city of Oberlin, OH thinks this way (for which they are being sued), but when federal law enforcement thinks this way, it is far more dangerous to more people.

  22. #22
    Regular Member JustaShooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    NE Ohio
    Posts
    728
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Actually, the law says something to the effect, "is licensed by," not, "has a license issued by." One literal meaning of licensed is, "has permission." Since reciprocity confers permission, it could be argued (I don't know how successfully) that having a reciprocal license means one is licensed (given permission) by the reciprocating State.

    If someone is ever charged under the law, this argument should be considered.
    I believe the next phrase of that section of the law restricts it in a way that renders your argument invalid:
    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 unless the State that the GFSZ is in "verifies that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license" a reciprocal or recognized license to carry does not provide an exception to the Federal GFSZ. And since no State is going to do this without issuing their own license, it wouldn't provide the needed exception.

    That said, it is so remotely unlikely to ever be an issue as to make the entire GFSZ moot except as a possible additional charge on top of the primary offense that an individual is being charged with.
    Last edited by JustaShooter; 10-18-2013 at 06:36 PM.
    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.

  23. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Ohio accomplishes this verification by reciprocating only with States who also have background checks.

  24. #24
    Regular Member JustaShooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    NE Ohio
    Posts
    728
    Interesting argument - I'm not sure that it is a valid one, but would certainly be worth pursuing if it ever came up. However, the BATF disagrees, as stated in this letter: http://www.handgunlaw.us/documents/batf_school_zone.pdf
    For purposes of the GFSZA, in order to fall within this limited exception, the permit must be issued by the State itself. Accordingly, your possession of a Virginia concealed weapons permit would not exempt you from the prohibitions of the Gun-Free School Zones Act in States that honor other State permits by legal agreement.
    Although Virginia is specifically mentioned the intent is clear and would apply to Ohio or any other State just as readily. I'm not saying that a sharp legal mind couldn't prevail using your argument, but the cards are certainly stacked against it, and I fear that, as is often the case, "you may beat the rap but you won't beat the ride". In the unlikely event that a licensed individual was ever charged with a violation of this act, that is.
    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.

  25. #25
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    Quote Originally Posted by gutshot View Post
    But they didn't do the verifying.
    Does any state do their own verifying, or do they call the FBI, and delegate it anyway? Verification is being done in a manner acceptable to the state, and that is the key I would argue.
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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