Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 39

Thread: Federal Gun Free School Zones Act

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    66

    Federal Gun Free School Zones Act

    I wrote this in response to a question in the Nevada section. However, I think it is important that it be posted to a national audience. It relates to Title 18 USC 922(q) The Federal Gun Free School Zones Act.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun-Fr...es_Act_of_1990




    Fact: If you are carrying or transporting a firearm within 1000 feet of any school in a state that has not physically issued you a permit, you are committing a crime punished like a felony, unless the firearm is unloaded and in a locked case.

    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 people convicted of crimes punishable by more than one year 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 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 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 03:43 PM.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by Eagle2009 View Post
    I wrote this in response to a question in the Nevada section. However, I think it is important that it be posted to a national audience. It relates to Title 18 USC 922(q) The Federal Gun Free School Zones Act.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun-Fr...es_Act_of_1990
    What specifically are you using as support for your 'statements' of 'fact?'

    Wikipedia articles are not useful as a source citation.

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

    (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.
    Last edited by wrightme; 10-05-2014 at 02:37 PM.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    66
    Quote Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
    What specifically are you using as support for your 'statements' of 'fact?'

    Wikipedia articles are not useful as a source citation.

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

    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. The ATF letter is also available at www.ok2a.org/fedgfsza

    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.
    Last edited by Eagle2009; 10-05-2014 at 03:07 PM.

  4. #4
    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.
    922 does prohibit for the >5 year possible sentence. It is not analogous to a felony conviction wrt rkba. The letter to the ok club outlined the references for relief, which is NOT as difficult as felony relief for rkba, as I understand it.

    And no, I disagree with your last statement. It is treated similar to a felony for rkba. I have as yet not see where it is treated similar to a felony 'in most areas of life.' Given that it is NOT a felony, the ONLY right lost, appears to be the rkba.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    66
    Quote Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
    922 does prohibit for the >5 year possible sentence. It is not analogous to a felony conviction wrt rkba. The letter to the ok club outlined the references for relief, which is NOT as difficult as felony relief for rkba, as I understand it.

    And no, I disagree with your last statement. It is treated similar to a felony for rkba. I have as yet not see where it is treated similar to a felony 'in most areas of life.' Given that it is NOT a felony, the ONLY right lost, appears to be the rkba.

    I'm not sure I understand your first paragraph, but a conviction is a lifetime prohibition on gun ownership, short of a presidential pardon. If you read 922(g) the federal law relating to "felons" possessing firearms, the law does not actually say "felony" but is instead triggered upon conviction of a crime punishable by more than one year or punishable by more than two years for specific white collar crimes. If you possess a gun after GFSZA conviction, there is no legal distinction at the federal level between you and someone who was convicted of murder, robbery, etc.

    This is not a personal quip against you, but every time I post anything about this, people will argue with me until we are both blue in the face. I wish everyone would use the effort they delegate to arguing with me to instead write Congress about this. Yes, there may be certain laws in certain states that differentiate between a labeled "felony" and a labeled "misdemeanor" but many many laws make no distinction and are triggered simply by the possible term of imprisonment. The lifetime loss of gun rights does occur after GFSZA conviction, and would be horribly hurtful to anyone that visits this forum.
    Last edited by Eagle2009; 10-05-2014 at 03:24 PM.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by Eagle2009 View Post
    I'm not sure I understand your first paragraph, but a conviction is a lifetime prohibition on gun ownership, short of a presidential pardon. If you read 922(g) the federal law relating to "felons" possessing firearms, the law does not actually say "felony" but is instead triggered upon conviction of a crime punishable by more than one year or punishable by more than two years for specific white collar crimes. If you possess a gun after GFSZA conviction, there is no legal distinction at the federal level between you and someone who was convicted of murder, robbery, etc.
    ...
    And, I am not sure where you are coming up with 'short of a presidential pardon.' That is more in line with getting relief for a felony conviction.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eagle2009
    This is not a personal quip against you, but every time I post anything about this, people will argue with me until we are both blue in the face. I wish everyone would use the effort they delegate to arguing with me to instead write Congress about this. Yes, there may be certain laws in certain states that differentiate between a labeled "felony" and a labeled "misdemeanor" but many many laws make no distinction and are triggered simply by the possible term of imprisonment. The lifetime loss of gun rights does occur after GFSZA conviction, and would be horribly hurtful to anyone that visits this forum.
    If you post anything about this, the best starting point is with the actual legal cites, the verbiage of the actual statutes, and the actual legal ramifications. Each time you mischaracterize it, you are the one who is presenting a false view of it to anyone who visits this forum.


    I agree that the loss involved from a conviction for the Federal GFSZ is drastic. Make it accurate at least.
    Last edited by wrightme; 10-05-2014 at 03:40 PM.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    66
    Quote Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
    Yes, there is a legal distinction. Such person is not considered a felon.
    And, I am not sure where you are coming up with 'short of a presidential pardon.'
    The possibility of a presidential pardon being the sole recourse to regain gun rights after GFSZA conviction is contained in the ATF letter written to the Oklahoma Second Amendment Association.

    I never said there is no legal distinction. I agree with you that there is a distinction in some cases. Now agree with me that there is no distinction in other cases, specifically 922(g)

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Long gone
    Posts
    2,575
    Quote Originally Posted by Eagle2009 View Post
    I wrote this in response to a question in the Nevada section. However, I think it is important that it be posted to a national audience. It relates to Title 18 USC 922(q) The Federal Gun Free School Zones Act.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun-Fr...es_Act_of_1990




    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.
    I would correct one thing the firearm does not have to be loaded just in your possession and not secured in a locked container. Unloaded anywhere but in a locked container is the same violation as loaded.

    This is why I have Concealed permits in 7 states even Arizona where a permit is not required. At some point I fully expect this law to be enforced at a level that will cause problems for a lot of gun owners.

    This is also a problem if national reciprocity for Concealed licenses ever becomes law.
    Last edited by Jeff Hayes; 10-05-2014 at 03:49 PM.
    Throw me to the wolves and I will come back leading the pack.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by Eagle2009 View Post
    The possibility of a presidential pardon being the sole recourse to regain gun rights after GFSZA conviction is contained in the ATF letter written to the Oklahoma Second Amendment Association.

    I never said there is no legal distinction. I agree with you that there is a distinction in some cases. Now agree with me that there is no distinction in other cases, specifically 922(g)
    I reread that bit, you did say 'no legal distinction.' But, I missed the portion that you referred specifically to 'possession of a firearm' after a GFSZA conviction.

    But, I am not sure that the letter to the OK club included all the avenues available:
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/925
    (c) A person who is prohibited from possessing, shipping, transporting, or receiving firearms or ammunition may make application to the Attorney General for relief from the disabilities imposed by Federal laws with respect to the acquisition, receipt, transfer, shipment, transportation, or possession of firearms, and the Attorney General may grant such relief if it is established to his satisfaction that the circumstances regarding the disability, and the applicant’s record and reputation, are such that the applicant will not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety and that the granting of the relief would not be contrary to the public interest. Any person whose application for relief from disabilities is denied by the Attorney General may file a petition with the United States district court for the district in which he resides for a judicial review of such denial. The court may in its discretion admit additional evidence where failure to do so would result in a miscarriage of justice. A licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector conducting operations under this chapter, who makes application for relief from the disabilities incurred under this chapter, shall not be barred by such disability from further operations under his license pending final action on an application for relief filed pursuant to this section. Whenever the Attorney General grants relief to any person pursuant to this section he shall promptly publish in the Federal Register notice of such action, together with the reasons therefor.
    To me, this reads as the progression of actions that can be explored well before any request for Presidential Pardon.
    Last edited by wrightme; 10-05-2014 at 03:45 PM.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  10. #10
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,279
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Hayes View Post
    I would correct one thing the firearm does not have to be loaded just in your possession and not secured in a locked container. Unloaded anywhere but in a locked container is the same violation as loaded.

    This is why I have Concealed permits in 7 states even Arizona where a permit is not required. At some point I fully expect this law to be enforced at a level that will cause problems for a lot of gun owners.
    As soon as Hillary appoints a justice to change the scope of SCOTUS. Then it will become open season. Hillary unless she is caught in huge scandal will be president for 8 years that makes 10 years from now. The elderly justices cannot live forever.
    It is well that war is so terrible otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    66
    To address wrightme's concerns, I have edited the original post to address the distinction between certain terms. However, I think we can all agree that due to the five year prison term and permanent loss of gun rights, this crime is significantly more serious than any traditional "misdemeanor" that someone might find in a municipal traffic code. I still stand by my original assertion that a conviction under this will trigger all criminal disabilities in any state or federal law which occur based on conviction of a crime punishable by more than one year.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Long gone
    Posts
    2,575
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    As soon as Hillary appoints a justice to change the scope of SCOTUS. Then it will become open season. Hillary unless she is caught in huge scandal will be president for 8 years that makes 10 years from now. The elderly justices cannot live forever.
    I am not yet convinced that Hillary is going to win if she runs, we will see in 2016.
    Throw me to the wolves and I will come back leading the pack.

  13. #13
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Hayes View Post
    I am not yet convinced that Hillary is going to win if she runs...
    Really? With polls pitting her 10 points higher than Romney? 15 points higher than anyone else?

    What the HELL is going to convince you, Jeff Hayes, that our world is deep in **** unless all conservatives get off their ASS and act NOW.

    Uh... DUH!!!

    Pull your head out of your ass. NOW.

    - VETERAN
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  14. #14
    Activist Member JamesCanby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Alexandria, VA at www.NoVA-MDSelfDefense.com
    Posts
    1,543
    I'd be more worried about this if you could show where anyone has been arrested by a local police agency and convicted of violating the GFSZA as a primary offense, not as an add-on offense. Or where GFSZA checkpoints have been set up anywhere in the country inside a school's 1,000' perimeter.
    Air Force Veteran
    NRA Life Member
    VCDL Member
    NRA Certified Chief Range Safety Officer
    NRA Certified Instructor: Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, Home Firearm Safety, Personal Protection
    Maryland Qualified Handgun Instructor
    Certified Instructor, Associated Gun Clubs of Baltimore, Inc.
    Member, Mt. Washington Rod & Gun Club
    National Sporting Clays Association Certified Referee

  15. #15
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,279
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    Really? With polls pitting her 10 points higher than Romney? 15 points higher than anyone else?

    What the HELL is going to convince you, Jeff Hayes, that our world is deep in **** unless all conservatives get off their ASS and act NOW.

    Uh... DUH!!!

    Pull your head out of your ass. NOW.

    - VETERAN
    The only way to stop her is to attack Obama on his violations of the constitution, AND to the people who suffered most from his violations. The GOP must reach to these voters and inform/educate them on Obama's lack of action on incidents of police misconduct. All Obama has done is lip service, when black young men and teens being killed is far more important than anything in the middle east. It is over due time for a war on corruption.
    It is well that war is so terrible otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    500
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    As soon as Hillary appoints a justice to change the scope of SCOTUS. Then it will become open season. Hillary unless she is caught in huge scandal will be president for 8 years that makes 10 years from now. The elderly justices cannot live forever.
    Hey real quick can someone tell me who signed this act into law in the first place?

    I'm doing a report for school.

  17. #17
    Regular Member krisman45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    American Fork UT
    Posts
    13

    Cool Action Now

    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    The only way to stop her is to attack Obama on his violations of the constitution, AND to the people who suffered most from his violations. The GOP must reach to these voters and inform/educate them on Obama's lack of action on incidents of police misconduct. All Obama has done is lip service, when black young men and teens being killed is far more important than anything in the middle east. It is over due time for a war on corruption.
    Hell yeah; we have all got to unite and take action!

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Long gone
    Posts
    2,575
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    Really? With polls pitting her 10 points higher than Romney? 15 points higher than anyone else?

    What the HELL is going to convince you, Jeff Hayes, that our world is deep in **** unless all conservatives get off their ASS and act NOW.

    Uh... DUH!!!

    Pull your head out of your ass. NOW.

    - VETERAN
    Excuse me but I am not convinced she can win because I think the Republican candidate will win in 2016 because of obama's and the Democrat's actions of the last 6 years, alomst 8 by that point.

    Now having said that I do not address others in the manner you just addressed me nor will I tolerate being addressed by others in that manner. If you are going to continue please let me know now so I can block your posts. Good day.
    Throw me to the wolves and I will come back leading the pack.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Spam reported.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  20. #20
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by JamesCanby View Post
    I'd be more worried about this if you could show where anyone has been arrested by a local police agency and convicted of violating the GFSZA as a primary offense, not as an add-on offense. Or where GFSZA checkpoints have been set up anywhere in the country inside a school's 1,000' perimeter.
    Discussions with local law enforcement reveal they occasionally arrest someone, usually a high-school student, for bringing a weapon on campus, often even just in their vehicle. I asked if that ever involved a firearm, and was told "rarely," and that they've had more issues with adults bringing a firearm on school grounds even though the firearm remained inside their vehicle. I mentioned the GFSZA allowance for CCP holders and one of the five LEOs seated at the table almost foamed at the mouth claiming it was no excuse, state law says blah-blah, etc. The others more or less rolled their eyes, which indicated their better understanding of the issue, so I just let it slide.

    The discussion did reveal that any weapons arrest on school grounds made by local LEOs would be handled locally, the only exception being if the suspect were also guilty of additional federal charges, at which point local law enforcement would inform the feds, and it would be up to the feds to charge the suspect, if warranted.

    The drift I was getting is that elevating issues to the federal level were quite rare.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  21. #21
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,279
    Quote Originally Posted by bomber View Post
    Hey real quick can someone tell me who signed this act into law in the first place?

    I'm doing a report for school.
    G H W Bush signed the first act into law, Clinton signed the revised act into law.
    It is well that war is so terrible otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  22. #22
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Hayes View Post
    Excuse me but I am not convinced she can win because I think the Republican candidate will win in 2016 because of obama's and the Democrat's actions of the last 6 years, alomst 8 by that point.
    Your convictions and beliefs notwithstanding, polls are more accurate.

    [qutoe]Now having said that I do not address others in the manner you just addressed me nor will I tolerate being addressed by others in that manner. If you are going to continue please let me know now so I can block your posts. Good day.[/QUOTE]

    Dear Jeff Hayes: Get off your high horse. These are message forums. People disagree, often vehemently. Stop copping superior airs and grow a spine.

    Your statement, "I am not yet convinced that Hillary is going to win if she runs...," clearly indicates a decided lack of comprehension on your with respect to the way politics works here in the United States of America.

    About a third of all voters cast their votes based on an objective decision reached after careful study of both the issues and the candidates. Another third vote strictly along party lines. The last third treat it as a popularity contest, voting for whoever appeals to them on a personal and/or emotional level, regardless of accomplishments or qualifications for office.

    That's a stripped-down version, and the percentages are approximations. Nevertheless, Hillary's lead in the polls could care less about your convictions. Put simply, Jeff Hayes, your convictions do not matter. What matters are the leanings of the voting population, which I was sharing when you came back with your "I'm not convinced...." remark, are (that's a current, measured fact) leaning towards Hillary leading Romney by 10 pts. The "why" of that is the result of myriads of factors, but the "what" remains the same: She's ahead.

    What's amazing is that "13 MILLION FEWER PEOPLE VOTED IN 2012 THAN IN 2008." Source. With so much at stake, why did so many fewer people head to the polls? Adding up all votes for all presidential candidates, 129,085,403 votes were cast. In 2008, the total adult population was 228,182,000. Thus, only 57% of eligible voters actually cast their votes. 43% stayed on the couch.

    My point in relaying Hillary's popularity lead in the polls is designed to wake people up to the fact that their votes CAN make a difference. I see people complaining on Facebook all the time, but did they vote? No. Do they write their Congressmen? No. Do they attend open sessions of local government? No.

    Well... Duh!

    Apathy is what's killing America. When 43% of eligible voters don't even care enough vote, I can't help but ask how many of those who did vote didn't care enough to thoroughly and objectively research both the issues and their candidates? Or did they just sit around listening to one news channel, essentially allowing some broadcasters to make up their minds for them?

    Then there are those who believe an entitlement state established by using a Cloward-Piven strategy is even remotely sustainable. Don't get me started...
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  23. #23
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Hayes View Post
    I would correct one thing the firearm does not have to be loaded just in your possession and not secured in a locked container. Unloaded anywhere but in a locked container is the same violation as loaded.

    This is why I have Concealed permits in 7 states even Arizona where a permit is not required. At some point I fully expect this law to be enforced at a level that will cause problems for a lot of gun owners.

    This is also a problem if national reciprocity for Concealed licenses ever becomes law.
    A concealed permit is NOT addressed in the GFSZA which means that if the feds really want to push this law to its letter, most states would not be in compliance and therefore their citizens with carry permits would be in violation of the GFSZA.
    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernBoy View Post
    A concealed permit is NOT addressed in the GFSZA which means that if the feds really want to push this law to its letter, most states would not be in compliance and therefore their citizens with carry permits would be in violation of the GFSZA.
    Maybe, maybe not. The federal statute may not explicitly include concealed carry permits, but it does appear to implicitly include them in 'licensed by the state.'


    The verbiage makes it an arguable point that is not clarified by statute.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  25. #25
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849
    Quote Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
    Maybe, maybe not. The federal statute may not explicitly include concealed carry permits, but it does appear to implicitly include them in 'licensed by the state.'


    The verbiage makes it an arguable point that is not clarified by statute.
    My point is, words have meaning. And even though we all know that the probable intent was to mean a permit to carry, that is not how the law is written. Which leaves the door open to all manner of mischief should the feds decide to hold the law to its letter. "if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State" means having a license to possess a firearm. With what we have seen over the past six years coming out of the current administration, nothing would surprise me.
    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

Page 1 of 2 12 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
  •