Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: re the school gun free zones and oc

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    king county
    Posts
    162

    re the school gun free zones and oc

    supposedly there is a school gun free zone of 1000 feet by federal law and supposedly it is hard to go very far doing open carry without a cpl without violating the federal law. Is this correct?

    So, does the fed law on school gun free zones basically require nearly everybody to get a cpl anyway, even if all they were going to do is open carry?

    z

  2. #2
    Regular Member Ajetpilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Olalla, Kitsap County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,410
    Has anyone ever been arrested/charged/tried/convicted of a violation of this ridiculous law?

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran slapmonkay's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    1,267
    Quote Originally Posted by zaitz View Post
    supposedly there is a school gun free zone of 1000 feet by federal law and supposedly it is hard to go very far doing open carry without a cpl without violating the federal law. Is this correct?

    So, does the fed law on school gun free zones basically require nearly everybody to get a cpl anyway, even if all they were going to do is open carry?

    z
    Legally yes it is likely possible that while OC you unknowingly enter this 1000 foot school zone. I would never advocate breaking the law but a few thoughts:

    A) The officer likely has to have RAS or PC that you don't have a permit. If you don't talk to them they would likely have a hard time proving this.

    B) A federal officer would likely have to arrest/charge you as no state law exists that mimics this. The odds of a federal officer being around and seeing you and having PC or RAS to stop you and ask for a permit is likely slim to none.

    C) I don't recall the language of law exactly and don't have time to look it up but I would argue you didn't knowingly enter such a zone.

    D) If I remember correctly, your not required to have in your possession the permit/license. It simply states you must be licensed and verified by the state. So lack of having in immediate possession your permit would not matter.

    All that said, to simplify things and make sure your not violating any laws its best to get a CPL. If you carry it on you while OC is up to you. You could leave it in the car and be good for car carry.

    As a side note, I used to OC frequently next to the school in Monroe on the sidewalk immediately next to the school at all times of day, even at let out. I had zero issues doing so.

    Be safe. Consult an attorney if you need an official opinion.


    Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk
    I Am Not A Lawyer, verify all facts presented independently.

    It's called the "American Dream" because you have to be asleep to believe it. - George Carlin

    I carry a spare tire, in case I have a flat. I carry life insurance, in case I die. I carry a gun, in case I need it.

  4. #4
    Regular Member F350's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    The High Plains of Wyoming
    Posts
    1,030
    Quote Originally Posted by gutshot View Post
    Yes, several have.
    OK; after a quick review of the posted cases I see all 3 were charged with other crimes like robbery and felon in possession of a firearm, in 2 cases the possession in a school zone were reversed.

    The BIG question: has anyone been arrested and charged SOLELY for possession in a school zone? I personally haven't been able to find such a case.

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    Quote Originally Posted by Ajetpilot View Post
    Has anyone ever been arrested/charged/tried/convicted of a violation of this ridiculous law?
    The real question is: has anyone been detained solely for violation of this unconstitutional law? IIRC, I read all the accounts in the post after yours, and they did not apply, but were charges added to people already actually being bad guys. I'll scan over them again tonight and make sure.

    A secondary question is: if so, in what state? It matters. We completely ignore this law in Nevada, Utah, and Arizona.
    Last edited by MAC702; 12-26-2015 at 03:32 PM.
    "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

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Long gone
    Posts
    2,575
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    Also, when one carries a firearm in another state based upon reciprocity (or no permit at all required), they are likely to violate the Federal Gun Free School Zone Act because reciprocity (or no permit required) does not qualify for the exemption for "licensed" persons. The license must be issued by the same state the school zone is in AND that same state must perform a background check before issuing the license.
    Absolutely correct, but keep in mind you have to know you were in a GFZ

    (snip) "prohibits any unauthorized individual from knowingly possessing a firearm at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone as defined by 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(25)."

    I read this as if you are driving down the freeway in a state you normally do not frequent one would have no way to know they were in a GFZ. Of course if you travel to work in another state and stay say for a week and you pass though a posted school zone every day on the way to and from you hotel thats gonna change things.

    This is the very reason I maintain permits in the states I frequent enough that I should have seen the school zone signs or schools. I live in AZ part of the year and even though I do not need a permit to carry in AZ I have an AZ permit it would be hard to argue that I did not see the school crossing sign in Quartzsite when I have driven by it hundreds of times.
    Throw me to the wolves and I will come back leading the pack.

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran slapmonkay's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    1,267
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    The license must be issued by the same state the school zone is in AND that same state must perform a background check before issuing the license.
    To be clear it says nothing about a background check. Simply licensed and verified.

    (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;



    Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk
    I Am Not A Lawyer, verify all facts presented independently.

    It's called the "American Dream" because you have to be asleep to believe it. - George Carlin

    I carry a spare tire, in case I have a flat. I carry life insurance, in case I die. I carry a gun, in case I need it.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    398
    Exactly how the law in that state requires is how, and that is up to each state to determine. There is no inherent requirement in the federal law that a background check be performed. Background checks may be the easiest or most obvious method, but they aren't REQUIRED by the actual law.

    Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

  9. #9
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    So tell me another method by which law enforcement officials could VERIFY that a person is qualified under law to receive the license other than a background check.
    Simple, they are not locked up.


    Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  10. #10
    Regular Member Bill45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington, USA
    Posts
    160
    Quote Originally Posted by arentol View Post
    Exactly how the law in that state requires is how, and that is up to each state to determine. There is no inherent requirement in the federal law that a background check be performed. Background checks may be the easiest or most obvious method, but they aren't REQUIRED by the actual law.

    Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
    Yes there is a federal law requiring background checks. It was mandated by the 1998 Brady handgun violence act. It requires a background check on all handguns purchase from a FFL dealer.

    By the way that should be a period after your second "how" and delete the "and". Then the sentence makes sense. Sort of.

  11. #11
    Campaign Veteran slapmonkay's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    1,267
    Quote Originally Posted by arentol View Post
    Exactly how the law in that state requires is how, and that is up to each state to determine. There is no inherent requirement in the federal law that a background check be performed. Background checks may be the easiest or most obvious method, but they aren't REQUIRED by the actual law.

    Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
    +1

    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    So tell me another method by which law enforcement officials could VERIFY that a person is qualified under law to receive the license other than a background check.
    I am not going to get into legalities of it but Montana has such a license and verification without background check, see MCA 45-8-360:
    Quote Originally Posted by MCA 45-8-360
    45-8-360. Establishment of individual licensure. In consideration that the right to keep and bear arms is protected and reserved to the people in Article II, section 12, of the Montana constitution, a person who has not been convicted of a violent, felony crime and who is lawfully able to own or to possess a firearm under the Montana constitution is considered to be individually licensed and verified by the state of Montana within the meaning of the provisions regarding individual licensure and verification in the federal Gun-Free School Zones Act.
    My original point is that the federal law does not require a background check. Its up to individual states, perhaps jurisdictions, to determine what verification they feel they need to implement or check. In fact, it says nothing about seeing the person, getting any information or anything as to what the process should be.
    I Am Not A Lawyer, verify all facts presented independently.

    It's called the "American Dream" because you have to be asleep to believe it. - George Carlin

    I carry a spare tire, in case I have a flat. I carry life insurance, in case I die. I carry a gun, in case I need it.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,095
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill45 View Post
    Yes there is a federal law requiring background checks. It was mandated by the 1998 Brady handgun violence act. It requires a background check on all handguns purchase from a FFL dealer.

    By the way that should be a period after your second "how" and delete the "and". Then the sentence makes sense. Sort of.
    That is not universally true. There are several 'Brady Alternatives'. If memory serves there are currently 18-19 states where not every purchase gets a NICS check.

  13. #13
    Campaign Veteran slapmonkay's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    1,267
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    Your assertion would be incorrect. It is a Federal law. Therefore it would be up to a Federal court to decide if the state's "verification" process satisfied the Federal requirement or not. It is simply a matter of the fact that this law is completely ignored unless it is charged as an add-on offense for another criminal charge and a Federal court has not had a case to decide whether or not "walking free" constitutes a "verification" that satisfies the Federal requirement.

    I don't particularly care, myself, if I am within 1000' of a school outside Washington, but people should be aware that they are violating the law so they can make an informed decision to do so.
    I will agree with you that its would be up to the federal court to decide if the states chosen verification process satisfies the federal requirement.
    Last edited by slapmonkay; 12-28-2015 at 03:39 PM.
    I Am Not A Lawyer, verify all facts presented independently.

    It's called the "American Dream" because you have to be asleep to believe it. - George Carlin

    I carry a spare tire, in case I have a flat. I carry life insurance, in case I die. I carry a gun, in case I need it.

  14. #14
    Campaign Veteran slapmonkay's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    1,267
    Quote Originally Posted by notalawyer View Post
    That is not universally true. There are several 'Brady Alternatives'. If memory serves there are currently 18-19 states where not every purchase gets a NICS check.
    I know this is a WA thread but in line with this comment, In Montana the dealer can use the CWP, which has a NICS number on it, as sufficient evidence and a background check is not required.
    I Am Not A Lawyer, verify all facts presented independently.

    It's called the "American Dream" because you have to be asleep to believe it. - George Carlin

    I carry a spare tire, in case I have a flat. I carry life insurance, in case I die. I carry a gun, in case I need it.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,095
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    Your assertion would be incorrect. It is a Federal law. Therefore it would be up to a Federal court to decide if the state's "verification" process satisfied the Federal requirement or not. It is simply a matter of the fact that this law is completely ignored unless it is charged as an add-on offense for another criminal charge and a Federal court has not had a case to decide whether or not "walking free" constitutes a "verification" that satisfies the Federal requirement.

    I don't particularly care, myself, if I am within 1000' of a school outside Washington, but people should be aware that they are violating the law so they can make an informed decision to do so.
    An unconstitutional law and an unlawful ATF interpretation of that law.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,095
    Quote Originally Posted by slapmonkay View Post
    I know this is a WA thread but in line with this comment, In Montana the dealer can use the CWP, which has a NICS number on it, as sufficient evidence and a background check is not required.
    Washington is too, so we're still on topic.
    I just went and checked and the total number of states that have some form of Brady Alternatives (no NICS check on firearms purchases) is up to 24 as of July of this year.

  17. #17
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    Nevada was readded to the list a couple years ago. Even though every sheriff did a background check at renewal, our state law did not mandate it. ATF removed our exemption for permit holders until the law was amended.
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,095
    Quote Originally Posted by MAC702 View Post
    Nevada was readded to the list a couple years ago. Even though every sheriff did a background check at renewal, our state law did not mandate it. ATF removed our exemption for permit holders until the law was amended.
    July 1, 2011.

Posting Permissions

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