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

Has anyone ever been arrested/charged/tried/convicted of a violation of this ridiculous law?

zaitz said:

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

Click to expand...

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

gutshot said:

Yes, several have.

• United States v Tait (Eleventh Circuit 2000)
• United States v Haywood (Third Circuit 2002)
• United States v Guzman-Montanez (First Circuit 2014) The original law was found to be unconstitutional by USSC in 1995. In 1996 Congress changed a few words and passed it again. All of these convictions are since the Act was passed a second time in 1996. Several more convictions from before 1995 can be seen at the wikipedia page on this law, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun-Free_School_Zones_Act_of_1990

Click to expand...

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.

Ajetpilot said:

Has anyone ever been arrested/charged/tried/convicted of a violation of this ridiculous law?

Click to expand...

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.

NavyLCDR said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

NavyLCDR said:

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.

Click to expand...

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;

Click to expand...

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

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

NavyLCDR said:

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.

Click to expand...

Simple, they are not locked up.


Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

arentol said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

arentol said:

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

Click to expand...

+1

NavyLCDR said:

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.

Click to expand...

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:

MCA 45-8-360 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Bill45 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

NavyLCDR said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

notalawyer said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

NavyLCDR said:

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.

Click to expand...

An unconstitutional law and an unlawful ATF interpretation of that law.

slapmonkay said:

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.

Click to expand...

Washington is too, so we're still on topic.:banana:
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.

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.

MAC702 said:

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.

Click to expand...

July 1, 2011.