Results 1 to 23 of 23

Thread: Clarification on 1000 ft. buffer zone around schools. Streets and sidewalks legal?

  1. #1
    Regular Member Ron_O's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    109

    Clarification on 1000 ft. buffer zone around schools. Streets and sidewalks legal?

    I've read conflicting reports about gun possession in school zones. Some have said it's OK on streets and sidewalks and even in school parking lots as long as you leave the weapon in the car and out of view.

    But the federal statute seems to make exceptions only for private property and police etc., whether it's a public or private school.

    Where do we stand here in Nevada? I've tried to search past links but again I've only been able to do a nationwide search, not Nevada-specific, so please point me to a prior discussion if possible.

    Seems to me that the simple act of driving by a school (or riding your bike past, which I do almost daily, by several schools) or walking on the sidewalk would violate the code.

    Here's a link through Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun-Fre...es_Act_of_1990

  2. #2
    Regular Member The Big Guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Waco, TX
    Posts
    1,950
    Quote Originally Posted by Ron_O View Post
    I've read conflicting reports about gun possession in school zones. Some have said it's OK on streets and sidewalks and even in school parking lots as long as you leave the weapon in the car and out of view.

    But the federal statute seems to make exceptions only for private property and police etc., whether it's a public or private school.

    Where do we stand here in Nevada? I've tried to search past links but again I've only been able to do a nationwide search, not Nevada-specific, so please point me to a prior discussion if possible.

    Seems to me that the simple act of driving by a school (or riding your bike past, which I do almost daily, by several schools) or walking on the sidewalk would violate the code.

    Here's a link through Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun-Fre...es_Act_of_1990
    You're ok as long as you stay off School property. Federal law is not enforced by local cops. In fact the federal law was ruled unconstitutional, and Congress decided to try an end run around SCOTUS. They changed the law to state that since guns travel in interstate commerce, that gives the Feds the right to control them. So far it has not been challenged again.

    TBG
    Life member GOA and NRA. Member of SAF, NAGR, TXGR and Cast Bullet Assoc.

  3. #3
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
    Posts
    3,828
    Federal statute also gives one an "out" if they have been issued a permit to conceal/possess/purchase by the STATE in which the school is located as to the federal 1000 foot buffer from the property line of the school.

    Various states also have their own STATE level laws regarding possession/carry of a handgun/long guns that vary from the the 1000 foot buffer of federal to school property only or parking lot carry.

    Also, note the different definitions of schools covered by the Federal vs State statutes.

    Federal covers K-12 ONLY per my recollection, State laws may include preschools - university or colleges, or even Private vs public schools. Heck, Utah's law used to cover the local Beautician Colleges. Thankfully, that has now be fixed!
    RIGHTS don't exist without RESPONSIBILITY!
    If one is not willing to stand for his rights, he doesn't have any Rights.
    I will strive to stand for the rights of ANY person, even those folks with whom I disagree!
    As said by SVG--- "I am not anti-COP, I am PRO-Citizen" and I'll add, PRO-Constitution.
    If the above makes me a RADICAL or EXTREME--- So be it!

    Life Member NRA
    Life Member GOA
    2nd amendment says.... "...The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!"

  4. #4
    Regular Member Ron_O's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    109
    Quote Originally Posted by The Big Guy View Post
    You're ok as long as you stay off School property. Federal law is not enforced by local cops. In fact the federal law was ruled unconstitutional, and Congress decided to try an end run around SCOTUS. They changed the law to state that since guns travel in interstate commerce, that gives the Feds the right to control them. So far it has not been challenged again.

    TBG
    Actually, TBG, if you check the link you'll see that the new revision has been challenged, and upheld, several times now in federal court. It's yet to hit the SCOTUS.

    I'm not sure I feel all that comfy if the law still applies in Nevada and my hope lies in the locals not enforcing it, or having it somehow hitting the feds once I start getting some public exposure due to activism and our GGCG film.

    I've read that we can't be in the parts of the buildings used for education but is that the extent of it, meaning that for Nevada that's the only thing we need be wary of? I regularly pass by a lot of schools on my rides and want to know my legal standing should I ever be singled out.

  5. #5
    Regular Member garand_guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    495
    Quote Originally Posted by JoeSparky View Post
    Heck, Utah's law used to cover the local Beautician Colleges. Thankfully, that has now be fixed!
    A lot of good work goes on in those places! Keep women looking great!
    Nevada Carry and Frontier Carry

    Helpful guide to gun laws in the Intermountain West

  6. #6
    Regular Member The Big Guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Waco, TX
    Posts
    1,950
    Quote Originally Posted by Ron_O View Post
    Actually, TBG, if you check the link you'll see that the new revision has been challenged, and upheld, several times now in federal court. It's yet to hit the SCOTUS.

    I'm not sure I feel all that comfy if the law still applies in Nevada and my hope lies in the locals not enforcing it, or having it somehow hitting the feds once I start getting some public exposure due to activism and our GGCG film.

    I've read that we can't be in the parts of the buildings used for education but is that the extent of it, meaning that for Nevada that's the only thing we need be wary of? I regularly pass by a lot of schools on my rides and want to know my legal standing should I ever be singled out.
    Guess it needs to get before SCOTUS before the court is changed by appointments. The unfortunate thing is that the Supremes don't have to hear it. I do not worry about it and go about my business. The fact is the feds regulate much under the guise of the commerce clause because thy know they have no real power to regulate. Worse yet, the states allow them to get away with it.

    TBG
    Life member GOA and NRA. Member of SAF, NAGR, TXGR and Cast Bullet Assoc.

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    Regardless of lower court rulings (mostly in states that have similar state laws), no iteration of the federal GFSZA has been enforced in most states, especially Nevada.

    You have nothing to fear in this mythical 1000 foot zone.

    Nevada law is all you need to worry about, and this is enforced on all school property (if caught), including parking lots. Streets and sidewalks outside the perimeter of the school are not school property.
    "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

  8. #8
    Regular Member Ron_O's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    109
    Quote Originally Posted by MAC702 View Post
    Regardless of lower court rulings (mostly in states that have similar state laws), no iteration of the federal GFSZA has been enforced in most states, especially Nevada.

    You have nothing to fear in this mythical 1000 foot zone.

    Nevada law is all you need to worry about, and this is enforced on all school property (if caught), including parking lots. Streets and sidewalks outside the perimeter of the school are not school property.
    I'm going to bank on both of your opinions, TBG and Mac, as I've been doing before now. This will be something we'll address in the film. This is just BS and serves no one other than to chase the law abiding away from daily carry. Every time I ride past a school this GFSZA comes to mind.

    Thanks for your thoughts.

  9. #9
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Reno, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,713
    The only people convicted of the statute since the change in phrasing that I know of were arrested for violation of other federal laws by federal police and it was tacked on. For instance, DEA does drug bust near school, drug dealer has a gun. However, sadly, a recent supreme court Marijuana ruling upheld similar wording to the current wording of the gun free school zones act as constitutional.

    However, the present law only requires proof that you were on school grounds, not affecting commerce. Therefore, a defense on grounds of lack of due process might be an interesting approach to challenging the constitutionality.

  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    Quote Originally Posted by Felid`Maximus View Post
    The only people convicted of the statute since the change in phrasing that I know of were arrested for violation of other federal laws by federal police and it was tacked on. For instance, DEA does drug bust near school, drug dealer has a gun. However, sadly, a recent supreme court Marijuana ruling upheld similar wording to the current wording of the gun free school zones act as constitutional.

    However, the present law only requires proof that you were on school grounds, not affecting commerce. Therefore, a defense on grounds of lack of due process might be an interesting approach to challenging the constitutionality.
    I'd be curious what this "similar wording" is. Marijuana is a federally-controlled substance, different from firearms, I would think. And the FGFSZA acknowledges ignorance (of the school) as a legitimate excuse, which is odd, and makes me think it could be treated very differently. I think even the current SCOTUS would narrowly defeat it if they chose to hear it.
    "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

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    The first step in such discussions should be to present the actual statutes in question, so an informed discussion is enabled:

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922

    18USC922
    (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 firearmó
    (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;
    (iii) that isó
    (I) not loaded; and
    (II) in a locked container, or a locked firearms rack that is on a motor vehicle;
    (iv) by an individual for use in a program approved by a school in the school zone;
    (v) by an individual in accordance with a contract entered into between a school in the school zone and the individual or an employer of the individual;
    (vi) by a law enforcement officer acting in his or her official capacity; or
    (vii) that is unloaded and is possessed by an individual while traversing school premises for the purpose of gaining access to public or private lands open to hunting, if the entry on school premises is authorized by school authorities.

    (3)
    (A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), it shall be unlawful for any person, knowingly or with reckless disregard for the safety of another, to discharge or attempt to discharge a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the person knows is a school zone.
    (B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the discharge of a firearmó
    (i) on private property not part of school grounds;
    (ii) as part of a program approved by a school in the school zone, by an individual who is participating in the program;
    (iii) by an individual in accordance with a contract entered into between a school in a school zone and the individual or an employer of the individual; or
    (iv) by a law enforcement officer acting in his or her official capacity.
    (4) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as preempting or preventing a State or local government from enacting a statute establishing gun free school zones as provided in this subsection.
    The part I put in bold lists the legal exceptions.

    (q)(1) is the dishonest verbiage the congress used to 'justify' intruding with statute.


    By construction, the federal statute does NOT apply to an unloaded locked firearm, including an unloaded long gun in a locked rack.

    And, while the statute states that 'licensed by the state' is one of the exceptions, discharge for self-defense is NOT listed in the exceptions for (3). (other than on private property)
    Last edited by wrightme; 09-21-2014 at 01:10 PM.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  12. #12
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Reno, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,713
    Quote Originally Posted by MAC702 View Post
    I'd be curious what this "similar wording" is. Marijuana is a federally-controlled substance, different from firearms, I would think. And the FGFSZA acknowledges ignorance (of the school) as a legitimate excuse, which is odd, and makes me think it could be treated very differently. I think even the current SCOTUS would narrowly defeat it if they chose to hear it.
    After U.S. vs Lopez found that guns near schools had nothing to do with Commerce, Congress came up with some bogus statements connecting it to commerce afterwards and basically repassed the same law the SCOTUS found invalid.

    Compare (Controlled Substance Act):
    http://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/21cfr/21usc/801.htm

    With (GFSZA) :
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922#q

    I think here is the court case in question which found that Congress could ban you from growing a crop in your own house for personal use under the interstate commerce clause:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich
    Last edited by Felid`Maximus; 09-22-2014 at 10:08 PM.

  13. #13
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    Quote Originally Posted by Felid`Maximus View Post
    After U.S. vs Lopez found that guns near schools had nothing to do with Commerce, Congress came up with some bogus statements connecting it to commerce afterwards and basically repassed the same law the SCOTUS found invalid...
    Right, but I missed the leap. Probably need a fresher look at it after coffee tomorrow.
    "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
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    City? Who wants to live in a CITY?, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,196
    The bottom line is that IN PRACTICE the law is not enforced as a primary offense in states were firearms carry is common.

    If you are doing something stupid, it may be used as a warning ("Why don't you be elsewhere before I notice that you've got a gun within 1000 feet of a school?"), or will be added to the blorf pile of charges following an arrest.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    66
    Fact: If you are carrying a loaded firearm within 1000 feet of any school in a state that has not physically issued you a permit, you are committing a felony.

    Fact: The law doesn't give as much leeway for "ignorance" as many think. The law doesn't require that you KNEW you were within 1000 feet of a school, only that a reasonable person in your situation should have known. How long have you lived in the area? Do you have school age children? How long has that school been there, maybe even when you were a kid? Surely you've noticed the flashing school speed limit signs at some point during your travels?

    Fact: If you are convicted, you will never legally touch a gun again, for the rest of your life.

    Fact: Many states list "places otherwise prohibited by federal law" as a prohibited place under state law. In these states, you would be committing an additional state offense.

    Fact: The revised version of the law has been upheld several times. If SCOTUS were to void the current GFSZA law based on its lack of connection to interstate commerce, they would also have to void nearly every other federal criminal statute which relies on a nexus of interstate commerce (all of them!). This would void nearly all of the federal government's police power that it has assumed over the last 110 years. Not going to happen. If you are not familiar with our current system of federal legislation, read the Wickard v. Filburn court case. It was how this "interstate commerce" business got started. Gonzales v Raich is also a good commerce clause case to read. The federal law which prohibits felons from possessing firearms, 922(g), is enforced ALL THE TIME. It relies on the exact same "nexus of commerce" that GFSZA does. Is anyone going to say that it isn't enforceable?

    Fact: Peace officers in many states have the authority to make arrests for violations of federal law. Read your state statutes that relate to peace officers, do they have the authority to arrest for federal violations? They do in my state.

    Fact: The government is very aware of this law and its effects, read the ATF letter that is included on the Wikipedia page you linked to.


    So, if you want to be a law abiding gun owner, don't carry your gun anywhere that would violate GFSZA. Otherwise, every unprosecuted violation committed will be another case of "not enforcing the laws on the books" that the NRA and many "law abiding gun owners" crusade for.

    Finally, don't misinterpret my post. I think Fed GFSZA is a terrible law, and it needs to be addressed legislatively. However, that isn't going to happen until all of these "law abiding gun owners" quit hiding from the truth and pretending this law doesn't exist, or that it can't be enforced. So many people refuse to spend thirty minutes to write their congressional representatives about this, and instead choose to trust that the government is benevolent enough to not prosecute them for multiple felony violations of the law. Warrantless checkpoints are okay when the police are looking for drunks. They are okay when the police are checking for immigration status. Don't think for a minute that these checkpoints wont continue to be okay when they are setup in front of schools and "law abiding gun owners" are being removed from their vehicles at gun point to face federal felony charges for GFSZA violations. Many of you know that President HW Bush banned the import of "assault weapons" in 1990 and President Obama continues to do so today. Does anyone know where the authority to ban the importation of firearms not "suitable to sporting purposes" came from? Answer: The Gun Control Act of 1968!!!!!!! This little known, unenforced, clause regarding "sporting purposes" sat on the books for decades before it was enforced, but it is certainly enforced today. I promise, GFSZA has not been forgotten, and will have substantial legal consequences in the future.
    Last edited by Eagle2009; 10-05-2014 at 02:30 PM.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by Eagle2009 View Post
    Fact: If you are carrying a loaded firearm within 1000 feet of any school in a state that has not physically issued you a permit, you are committing a felony.
    .
    Saying 'Fact:' before everything you post, does not make something a fact.




    (4) Whoever violates section 922 (q) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the term of imprisonment imposed under this paragraph shall not run concurrently with any other term of imprisonment imposed under any other provision of law. Except for the authorization of a term of imprisonment of not more than 5 years made in this paragraph, for the purpose of any other law a violation of section 922 (q) shall be deemed to be a misdemeanor.
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/924

    Unless I am missing something somewhere, a violation of the Federal GFSZ statute is defined as a misdemeanor right there.
    Last edited by wrightme; 10-05-2014 at 02:33 PM.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    66
    Read the ATF letter on the wikipedia page. Also, read the US court cases contained on the Wikipedia page, specifically United States v Dorsey. If you feel the PDFs of the court cases on wiki are somehow forged, I would be happy to link to them on a more credible website.

    Yes, you are correct that the law does SAY it's a misdemeanor, but most other laws dealing with felony convictions hinge on the possible term of imprisonment, not on the text of the law. A conviction bans you from firearms ownership as stated (with good legal references) in the ATF letter. For nearly every purpose, a conviction under Fed GFSZA has the same legal effects as any felony conviction. Upon conviction of Fed GFSZA, you will be treated as a felon in most areas of life. I'd be happy to edit the post and say "committing a crime punished like a felony" if you feel that would be more suitable.

    Quote Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
    Saying 'Fact:' before everything you post, does not make something a fact.





    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/924

    Unless I am missing something somewhere, a violation of the Federal GFSZ statute is defined as a misdemeanor right there.
    Last edited by Eagle2009; 10-05-2014 at 03:01 PM.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by Eagle2009 View Post
    Read the ATF letter on the wikipedia page. Also, read the US court cases contained on the Wikipedia page, specifically United States v Dorsey. If you feel the PDFs of the court cases on wiki are somehow forged, I would be happy to link to them on a more credible website.

    Yes, you are correct that the law does SAY it's a misdemeanor, but most other laws dealing with felony convictions hinge on the possible term of imprisonment, not on the text of the law. A conviction bans you from firearms ownership as stated (with good legal references) in the ATF letter. For nearly every purpose, a conviction under Fed GFSZA has the same legal effects as any felony conviction. Upon conviction of Fed GFSZA, you will be treated as a felon in most areas of life. I'd be happy to edit the post and say "committing a crime punished like a felony" if you feel that would be more suitable.
    Then those cases should have been your cites for your points. Seriously.


    You tried to claim it was a felony to violate the GFSZ, and it is not. It isn't 'treated as a felony,' it is 'treated as a crime punishable by a sentence of greater than 1 year.'
    Last edited by wrightme; 10-05-2014 at 03:08 PM.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Las Vegas NV, ,
    Posts
    1,763
    Fact:Adult bears are big.

    Fact: like the other guy I didnt post any cites to back my claim.

    Fact: I wrote the word fact, it must be a fact.
    Last edited by Vegassteve; 10-05-2014 at 03:31 PM.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    66

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Pointy end and slightly to the left
    Posts
    1,539
    Fact. I have never read where a person was arrested here in Nevada where the arrest was only for carrying a firearm within 1000' of a school.
    What about the hundreds of home with guns across the street from a school? If they remove the guns from their house and into their vehicle to go shooting are they breaking the law or going to be arrested? My sister lives across from a school I OC many times front yard, from the car parked on the street. Have I been lucky? I believe being arrested for getting out of the car in front of my sister house for the purpose of visiting my sister is a nonissue.

  22. #22
    Regular Member Ron_O's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    109
    Quote Originally Posted by 28kfps View Post
    Fact. I have never read where a person was arrested here in Nevada where the arrest was only for carrying a firearm within 1000' of a school.

    What about the hundreds of home with guns across the street from a school? If they remove the guns from their house and into their vehicle to go shooting are they breaking the law or going to be arrested? My sister lives across from a school I OC many times front yard, from the car parked on the street. Have I been lucky? I believe being arrested for getting out of the car in front of my sister house for the purpose of visiting my sister is a nonissue.
    I concur and this is why I've asked the question in the first place. Whether misdemeanor or felony isn't the issue for me. It's the same as with the Clark County parks issue, where it's illegal to possess a firearm within the park boundaries. With the parks issue it's easier to 'avoid' being there altogether, but when it comes to the school buffer zone it's not a practical issue.

    On my average 15-20 mile bike rides I probably pass 2-5 schools on a given day. Undoubtedly thousands of vehicles with firearms do the same thing. This is why I don't OC while I'm riding, I keep it in my bicycle pouch. And to me this is why the code needs to be challenged, it's not practical nor enforceable in a practical sense.

    I do agree with Eagle2009's example of checkpoints, however. I can't imagine it would come to that with schools but it's one more nail in the coffin as it relates to our erosion of freedoms. I've been through MANY of those checkpoints along the interstates and it's a feeling of violation like no other. Dogs circling your vehicle, intrusive questions, dozens of cameras, and more. Just because you're driving down the freeway.
    Last edited by Ron_O; 10-06-2014 at 01:40 AM.
    Check out our www.GoodGuyZone.org (Website-More to See) or Good Guys Carry Guns (Facebook) film project info pages for an important 2nd Amendment project we're developing!

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Fallon, NV
    Posts
    577
    There are a couple exceptions and ways to carry in a FGFSZ. We've discussed this plenty on these forums. I open carry in FGFSZ all day long, legally.
    Hoka hey

Posting Permissions

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