• 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.

July 25, 2013 ATF Letter Regarding Permit Holders and Fed GFSZA

Eagle2009

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2011
Messages
66
Location
United States
The Oklahoma Second Amendment Association just released a letter dated July 25, 2013 from the Federal Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives confirming the following facts about Title 18 USC 922(q) "The Federal Gun Free School Zones Act"


1. An Oklahoma permit holder traveling on public roads can be federally prosecuted for carrying a gun in other states that recognize Oklahoma's permit

2. An Oklahoma permit holder can be federally prosecuted for discharging their firearm in an act of otherwise lawful self defense.

3. A conviction under the Federal Gun Free School Zones Act causes a person to become a lifetime prohibited firearm buyer/possessor.

You can download the letter by clicking the link I am including below to the OK2A website's Fed GFSZA page and clicking the "download" link at the very top of their page.

http://www.ok2a.org/fedgfsza
 
Last edited by a moderator:

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Here is the link to the letter (more useful): Link to the letter. Read the letter itself, rather than assuming its representation is accurate.

Despite the letter indicating otherwise, the word "issued" is not in the law. Absent a court ruling stating otherwise, the possibility that "licensed" can mean "has permission" (even though that permission is gained via reciprocity) remains a possible argument in court. Next, one has to "knowingly" possess the firearm in the Defense-Free-School-Zone. Short of actually driving by the school or a sign, that's kind of tough to prove if you are just traveling around.

Paragraph 2 of the post above fails to mention that that discharge must be in the school zone. I think that the letter's interpretation is a loser on appeal. Hell, it won't even get to appeal if they can't prove that the defender knew he was in a DFSZ!

I may have missed it (correct me if I have), but I don't see the letter stating what paragraph 3 of the above post says. That notwithstanding, it is still surely a true statement.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
Not even considering that the GFSZA has seen virtually no use in prosecution as a primary offense, I have little doubt that it will be found to be unconstitutional just as the original was.

Think that the primary purpose is to frighten those that are not up to speed on the way things really work.
 

rushcreek2

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2010
Messages
909
Location
Colorado Springs. CO
Not particularly dismayed, impressed, surprised - considering the dubious source (BATFE).

The net effect of a reciprocity agreement between 2 states in the instance of CCW licenses/permits is in fact -the mutual issuance of LICENSE /PERMISSION pursuant to the governing provisions of the laws of those states.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
Not particularly dismayed, impressed, surprised - considering the dubious source (BATFE).

The net effect of a reciprocity agreement between 2 states in the instance of CCW licenses/permits is in fact -the mutual issuance of LICENSE /PERMISSION pursuant to the governing provisions of the laws of those states.
Which has nothing to do with the federal GRSZA or it's interpertation.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
As I said..............RECIPROCITY IS A LICENSE - issued by the State in which the schools are located.
Reciprosity or recognition is not a license, it is grant to carry in accordance with the state laws - it does not satisfy federal law.

GFSZA states that one will have a license issued by the state in which the school is located, not another state.

I would add that this condition cannot be satisfied in Constitutional Carry states where the actor does not have a permit/license from that state.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,936
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Not even considering that the GFSZA has seen virtually no use in prosecution as a primary offense, I have little doubt that it will be found to be unconstitutional just as the original was.

Think that the primary purpose is to frighten those that are not up to speed on the way things really work.
Correct, Lopez made it clear, commerce clause does not apply once the firearm is removed from commerce.

Also, the Oklahoma people do not understands the law. Having a license to carry a gun, openly or concealed, has no bearing on the Title 18 U.S.C. Section 922(q)(2)(B)(ii).
(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 does not say a license to carry a gun, it says a license to poses a gun.
 
Last edited:

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,936
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Also, Oklahoma's TITLE 21 § 1290.12 and TITLE 21 § 1290.18 demanding a social security number to obtain a carry license is against federal law.

See Notes under 5 U.S.C. 552a

Disclosure of Social Security Number

Pub. L. 93–579, §*7,Dec. 31, 1974, 88 Stat. 1909, provided that:
“(a)(1) It shall be unlawful for any Federal, State or local government agency to deny to any individual any right, benefit, or privilege provided by law because of such individual’s refusal to disclose his social security account number.
“(2) the [The] provisions of paragraph (1) of this subsection shall not apply with respect to—
“(A) any disclosure which is required by Federal statute, or
“(B) the disclosure of a social security number to any Federal, State, or local agency maintaining a system of records in existence and operating before January 1, 1975, if such disclosure was required under statute or regulation adopted prior to such date to verify the identity of an individual.
“(b) Any Federal, State, or local government agency which requests an individual to disclose his social security account number shall inform that individual whether that disclosure is mandatory or voluntary, by what statutory or other authority such number is solicited, and what uses will be made of it.”
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
As I said..............RECIPROCITY IS A LICENSE - issued by the State in which the schools are located.

Reciprocity is not A license. It is not the piece of paper. However, the law does not clearly discuss the piece of paper. It says "is licensed," not "was issued a license." A valid, plain-English reading of "is licensed" is "has permission." Reciprocity grants permission.

This interpretation has not been tested in court. I ain't volunteering to test it. However, the ATF, notwithstanding its willingness to issue letters to the contrary, doesn't get to make the call in court. A judge and/or jury does. If I ever were arrested under the DFSZA, this is one of the defenses I would put forth.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Reciprosity or recognition is not a license, it is grant to carry in accordance with the state laws - it does not satisfy federal law.

GFSZA states that one will have a license issued by the state in which the school is located, not another state.

I would add that this condition cannot be satisfied in Constitutional Carry states where the actor does not have a permit/license from that state.

Where does the word "issued" come from???
 

Eagle2009

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2011
Messages
66
Location
United States
Whether or not reciprocity counts as a "license" is not the determining factor. If you read the paragraph, in addition to being "licensed" by the state (or political subdivision) it is a requirement that the law enforcement authorities of the state where the school is located verify the individual is qualified to receive the "license." That is the catch. The law enforcement in a state you are visiting has in no way verified that you, the individual, are qualified to receive your reciprocal "license." Therefore it is not valid for federal purposes. The fact is, if you carry in a state other than the one that issued your license, you are breaking the law. You are relying on nothing more than the benevolence of law enforcement to keep you out of prison, and keep you from being a felon.

We now have two separate ATF letters, one from 2002, and a recent one from 2013 saying the exact same thing. The federal position is clear. Frankly, the law is pretty clear too, no matter how badly we wish it said something different.
 
Last edited:

Eagle2009

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2011
Messages
66
Location
United States
Title 18 USC 922(q) said:
(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;

That is exactly what it says. The exception has two parts. The "license" part and the "verification" part. Both parts must be met for the exception to apply, and the verification part is not met by reciprocity in any way, shape, or form no matter how sympathetic the judge is.
 
Last edited:

Primus

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
3,939
Location
United States
It says what you quoted. It does not say what you said it said.

You are missing something.

It sounds like it says the guys issuing you the license must verify your ok to have said license. So I guess you establish that by if you have the license or don't have it. Meaning if you did have it obviously you passed their "verification".

But that has nothing to do with the the le (atf) guys in the other state. They check of you have a license. You do your good. You don't your bad.

Am I reading that right?

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
 

Eagle2009

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2011
Messages
66
Location
United States
It sounds like it says the guys issuing you the license must verify your ok to have said license. So I guess you establish that by if you have the license or don't have it. Meaning if you did have it obviously you passed their "verification".

But that has nothing to do with the the le (atf) guys in the other state. They check of you have a license. You do your good. You don't your bad.

Am I reading that right?

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk


As long as the law enforcement authorities in the state that issued your license verified you were qualified to have that license, you are exempt in THAT state from the possession restrictions. You are not exempt in any other state you travel to that recognizes that license. Basically your license is only good for the state that issued it, and none of the states that recognize it.

You can still be prosecuted for discharge in the state that issued your license, as stated in the July 2013 ATF letter.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
It says that the State's law has to require verification of the individuals qualification for the license. This is accomplished in Ohio by only reciprocating with States that require background checks.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>
 
Top