Federal Gun Free School Zones Act

bomber said:

Hey real quick can someone tell me who signed this act into law in the first place?

I'm doing a report for school.

Click to expand...

G H W Bush signed the first act into law, Clinton signed the revised act into law.

Jeff Hayes said:

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.

Click to expand...

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...

Jeff Hayes said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

SouthernBoy said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

wrightme said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

SouthernBoy said:

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.

Click to expand...

This has always been my problem with the way the law is written. In most states the permit statutes do not say that a permit is a license to carry in a GFSZ. I may be mistaken but I believe Co spells it out in their law though.

Permit does not authorize concealed firearms, where--penalty for violation. - 571.107. 1. A concealed carry permit issued pursuant to sections 571.101 to 571.121, a valid concealed carry endorsement issued prior to August 28, 2013, or a concealed carry endorsement or permit issued by another state or political subdivision of another state shall authorize the person in whose name the permit or endorsement is issued to carry concealed firearms on or about his or her person or vehicle throughout the state. No concealed carry permit issued pursuant to sections 571.101 to 571.121, valid concealed carry endorsement issued prior to August 28, 2013, or a concealed carry endorsement or permit issued by another state or political subdivision of another state shall authorize any person to carry concealed firearms into:

(10) Any higher education institution or elementary or secondary school facility without the consent of the governing body of the higher education institution or a school official or the district school board. Possession of a firearm in a vehicle on the premises of any higher education institution or elementary or secondary school facility shall not be a criminal offense so long as the firearm is not removed from the vehicle or brandished while the vehicle is on the premises;

Click to expand...

Unlawful use of weapons--exceptions--penalties. - 571.030. 1. A person commits the crime of unlawful use of weapons if he or she knowingly:

(10) Carries a firearm, whether loaded or unloaded, or any other weapon readily capable of lethal use into any school, onto any school bus, or onto the premises of any function or activity sponsored or sanctioned by school officials or the district school board.

3. Subdivisions (1), (5), (8), and (10) of subsection 1 of this section do not apply ... Subdivision (10) of subsection 1 of this section does not apply if the firearm is otherwise lawfully possessed by a person while traversing school premises for the purposes of transporting a student to or from school, or possessed by an adult for the purposes of facilitation of a school-sanctioned firearm-related event or club event.

4. Subdivisions (1), (8), and (10) of subsection 1 of this section shall not apply to any person who has a valid concealed carry permit issued pursuant to sections 571.101 to 571.121, a valid concealed carry endorsement issued before August 28, 2013, or a valid permit or endorsement to carry concealed firearms issued by another state or political subdivision of another state.

Click to expand...

There are contradictions in the statutes...obviously. Like the next subsection of 571.030 that states it is not unlawful to use a weapon in lawful self defense...go figure.

The key is subsection 3, no unlawful use of weapon offense if you are a LAC and don't wave your gat about your head. Or, get out with it strapped to your hip. If the state gave a rat's rear-end about liberty then it would "inform" the feds that they can take their GFSZ Act and shove it where the sun don't shine. It is our schools and keep your grubby mitts outta our state.

no comment, not worth the effort.

double tap really really not worth the effort.

SouthernBoy said:

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.

Click to expand...

wrightme said:

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.

Click to expand...

I would not bet against licensed = permit. Consider the odds are that they will be deemed to be the same.

Gun Free School Zones

I just have one question. If my home and property fall fully inside this so called gun free zone, say 500',
will I be considered a federal felon, if I open carry in my yard?

..................Jack

Spooler41 said:

I just have one question. If my home and property fall fully inside this so called gun free zone, say 500',
will I be considered a federal felon, if I open carry in my yard?

..................Jack

Click to expand...

Nightmare said:

Nope. Private property

18 U.S.C. § 922(q)(2)(A) does not apply to the possession of a firearm [ ... ] (i) on private property not part of school grounds;

Click to expand...

That exemption to the GFSZ applies to any private property, not just your yard.

Grapeshot said:

That exemption to the GFSZ applies to any private property, not just your yard.

Click to expand...

Twice I've read where it also applies if you've parked reasonably close to the property, such as in the street in front of the property or an alleyway in back.

Alas, I don't recall the sources. Grapeshot? Do you know where I might have seen this?

since9 said:

Twice I've read where it also applies if you've parked reasonably close to the property, such as in the street in front of the property or an alleyway in back.

Alas, I don't recall the sources. Grapeshot? Do you know where I might have seen this?

Click to expand...

Nope, I do not, but afraid the source/cite would be found under "internet opinion."

If one had no driveway, no yard in front, no alley behind, and the closest parking spot was a a block away, wonder if that would be "reasonable close to the property?"

since9 said:

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.

Click to expand...

Please accept my apology, I breezed right over your/this post. The LEO views you post are very similar to the LEO views I have heard locally. Local cops seem to be a wee bit more pragmatic regarding me having a gun on my hip when I drop my kids off at school.

Once, many years ago, I dropped my Sousaphone wielding son off at school and had to get out of my truck to assist in its removal from the bed of the truck. It was cold and my coat was not zipped closed. A female city cop spied my pistol, she was obviously very interested in me but did nothing because of the situation. The law in MO is "in the vehicle, OK." Out of the truck, big no-no. She could have done her duty and requested to see my CCW endorsement...and likely create a huge scene in front of the school at 7:30 AM. I saw her later that day at the local C-store and offered to buy her a cup of coffee, she declined. Coat was unzipped and the pistol was visible, she did not bat an eye.

It seems to me that the last thing a local cop wants is a fed running around seeing if local cops are enforcing federal law. It also seems to me that the feds, and I know one, have better things to do than second guessing the locals. Most local cops know the law and get it regarding the feds and their laws.

OC for ME said:

Please accept my apology.

Click to expand...

No worries, and not necessary. Just message forum debate. Even so, thank you.

It seems to me that the last thing a local cop wants is a fed running around seeing if local cops are enforcing federal law. It also seems to me that the feds, and I know one, have better things to do than second guessing the locals. Most local cops know the law and get it regarding the feds and their laws.

Click to expand...

Very early on, all law enforcement personnel learn that jurisdiction is paramount, that one never steps in someone else's jurisdiction. It can create a turf war between LEO bosses and usually results in serious career impediments to whoever did the stepping.

I know three FBI agents. One is retired, another moved on to another LE job with the feds, and the third remains in the ranks. None of them like the GFSZA law, for a variety of reasons previously mentioned on these forums and elsewhere. Most notably, however, they expressed the same sentiment, despite having served in three entirely different branches across the country: "It invites the kooks to harm our kids."

No one likes that.

Grapeshot said:

Nope, I do not, but afraid the source/cite would be found under "internet opinion."

If one had no driveway, no yard in front, no alley behind, and the closest parking spot was a a block away, wonder if that would be "reasonable close to the property?"

Click to expand...

Judgement call, but one that I wouldn't want to make as the OCer!