1000ft. from K-12 School

imported post

Unfortunately, the Federal GFSZA is in no way dependent on state law. The definition of a school zone is found in 18USC921:

(25) The term ``school zone'' means--
(A) in, or on the grounds of, a public, parochial or private
school; or
(B) within a distance of 1,000 feet from the grounds of a
public, parochial or private school.

The bottom line is this; if you carry a firearm on public property in a school zone, loaded or not (and by carry I mean in a holster on your person or in a vehicle within reach and not in a locked case), and you DO NOT have a valid license/permit to carry issued in the State where the school is located, you are in violation. This is particularly egregious since the BATFE does NOT recognize any sort of reciprocity agreements between states; if you have a VA permit, currently considered validby NC, and you carry through a school zone in NC, they interpret that as a violation. See the BATFE letter on the GFSZA at http://www.handgunlaw.us/state-link.htm; the link is on thaqt page. Additionally, even ifyou DO have a permit in a state that allows you to carry in a GFSZ, there is no provision in the law allowing DISCHARGE of a firearm in self-defense; if you are chased into the street by an assailant in a school zone, and defend yourself lawfully, you won't be charged under State law, but the Feds could prosecute you for it. This law is generally not enforced... yet. I believe that getting this fixed is as important, if not more so, than the National Park ban; it's a lot easier to stay out of Parks than school zones while conducting your daily business.

Note that if you have a non-resident permit for, say, FL, and you visit FL and carry in a GFSZ, you are good to go, since that permit WAS issued by "the state in which the school is located". It's the reciprocal agreement states where you are carrying on an out-of-state permit that you need to worry about. Sorry, LEO229, but VA Code has nothing to do with this...

imported post

hsmith wrote:

Citizen wrote:

The Code quoted above left out the section on "definitions".

See: http://www.gunlaws.com/Gun_Free_School_Zones_Act.pdf For some reason I can't link to .pdf's, so you'll have to type it in. The part about 1000' is covered in the definitions at the bottom of the page.

I would not want to be a test case.

Click to expand...

But B.i doesn't apply to the "school zone" it applies directly to the school grounds. So if you are standing across the street OC'ing your firearm you are not violating the Federal Law.

Even the state law which LEO posted covers brandishing, so it doesn't apply in this case, even though it does give the "1000ft" rule

Click to expand...

The exception is for private property. Standing on the public sidewalk would be a violation.

imported post

Pretty good summary although a violation occurs even if the firearm is not within reach - it must be locked up. And there are four other exceptions (iv)-(vii) that are probably rarely used.

johnfenter wrote:

Unfortunately, the Federal GFSZA is in no way dependent on state law. The definition of a school zone is found in 18USC921:

(25) The term ``school zone'' means--
(A) in, or on the grounds of, a public, parochial or private
school; or
(B) within a distance of 1,000 feet from the grounds of a
public, parochial or private school.

The bottom line is this; if you carry a firearm on public property in a school zone, loaded or not (and by carry I mean in a holster on your person or in a vehicle within reach and not in a locked case), and you DO NOT have a valid license/permit to carry issued in the State where the school is located, you are in violation. //redacted//

Click to expand...

imported post

Not so sure on sidewalks, apjonas. It may be a public right of way, but it's probably not public property. The acid test is simple; ifsomeone slips and injures themselves on an unshoveled or icy sidewalk, who gets sued? Usually not the city/county. It's the private property owner, where the plat map at the courthouse shows the sidewalk as being an easement or right of way across their land. Sometimes, in a development, the plat even covers the street. But usually, the street is public property.

I make it a practice when walking past a school to cross the street, and use the sidewalk on the other side; it's possible that the sidewalk next to the school is technically on school property (per the plat map), which puts me in violation of VA law. Something to think about...

imported post

johnfenter wrote:

Not so sure on sidewalks, apjonas. It may be a public right of way, but it's probably not public property. The acid test is simple; ifsomeone slips and injures themselves on an unshoveled or icy sidewalk, who gets sued? Usually not the city/county. It's the private property owner, where the plat map at the courthouse shows the sidewalk as being an easement or right of way across their land. Sometimes, in a development, the plat even covers the street. But usually, the street is public property.

I make it a practice when walking past a school to cross the street, and use the sidewalk on the other side; it's possible that the sidewalk next to the school is technically on school property (per the plat map), which puts me in violation of VA law. Something to think about...

Click to expand...

The sidewalk is ALWAYS public property unless it is on YOUR property leading up to your house.

Many localities require you to shovel off the snow from the sidewalk in front of your house.You are not responsible for the sidewalk off your property in a law suit nor are you required to repair raised edges that could cause people to trip and fall.

imported post

johnfenter wrote:

Unfortunately, the Federal GFSZA is in no way dependent on state law. The definition of a school zone is found in 18USC921:

(25) The term ``school zone'' means--
(A) in, or on the grounds of, a public, parochial or private
school; or
(B) within a distance of 1,000 feet from the grounds of a
public, parochial or private school.

The bottom line is this; if you carry a firearm on public property in a school zone, loaded or not (and by carry I mean in a holster on your person or in a vehicle within reach and not in a locked case), and you DO NOT have a valid license/permit to carry issued in the State where the school is located, you are in violation.

Click to expand...

This is not actually the whole truth to the matter. The letter to the Virginia resident from the BATFE suggests that certain exceptions are provided for states or political subdivisions that may notrequire LEO authorities to verify that the individual is qualified under the law to receive a license.

In my state, a permit process exists but only for the purposes of obtaining reciprocity with 32 other states. To get that permit, there is a training requirement. However, a permit is not required to carry openlyor concealed in my state and there is no training requirement, therefore, the police would not need to ask to see a permit in the first place.

In Vermont, there is no permit process at all. I wonder how in these two cases, the law is construed because in our state's off-limits places to carry as listed in Alaska firearms law, the school property itself is mentioned, not the 1000ft part. Additionally, I live about 10ft. from an elementary school and obviously because of private property, I am not violating any laws by possessing firearms in or outside my home.

http://www.handgunlaw.us/documents/batf_school_zone.pdf

imported post

I live on a road with a School on it. In order to get to a main road, I HAVE to drive past a Public Elementary School. So, technically, as I do not have a CHP, I've been breaking the law every single time I've gone to the range?

imported post

Yea that is what I am wondering about too. If you pass a school on the way to the range or something then what do you do? There is a school just down the street from me that in order to get out of my neighborhood I have to come withing 1000 ft of. In fact, my house is probably close to 1000' from the back corner of the school grounds. I am for sure getting my CHP when I turn 21 anyways though:lol:

imported post

If you are open carrying your loaded firearm as you drive past the school, then yes, you are within 1,000 feet of the school property line and violating the Federal GFSZA, since you don't have a permit to carry. If you park the car on your private property (driveway), unload the firearm, lock it in the trunk or a locked case, separate from the ammo, and then drive past the school, you're OK. Yes, this sucks. My back yard abuts an elementary school playground; if I didn't have a permit, and I parked my car on the street and went to get something out of the trunk while open carrying, I'd be in violation. Once again, this is completely separate from VA law and is almost never enforced. But I don't want to be the first test case...

imported post

johnfenter wrote:

If you are open carrying your loaded firearm as you drive past the school, then yes, you are within 1,000 feet of the school property line and violating the Federal GFSZA, since you don't have a permit to carry. If you park the car on your private property (driveway), unload the firearm, lock it in the trunk or a locked case, separate from the ammo, and then drive past the school, you're OK. Yes, this sucks. My back yard abuts an elementary school playground; if I didn't have a permit, and I parked my car on the street and went to get something out of the trunk while open carrying, I'd be in violation. Once again, this is completely separate from VA law and is almost never enforced. But I don't want to be the first test case...

Click to expand...

No S*** you got that right! I guess I will just wait till I'm 21 so I can have a CHP with me.:banghead:

imported post

johnfenter wrote:

*SNIP* Once again, this is completely separate from VA law and is almost never enforced. But I don't want to be the first test case...

Click to expand...

This is what was said at the lastMason Gov't Ctr.VCDL meeting.

imported post

.

imported post

hsmith wrote:

I can't find anything defining school zones either... Maybe someone better at scouring code can.

Me (possibly) living within a 1000 feet of a "school zone" would mean that i can't even own firearms in my abode!

Click to expand...

We are discussing a federal law - look for federal laws in the US Code.

See 18 USC 922(q) and related efinitions of schools and zone in Section 921. And yes, at least one federal circuit has upheld application of the statute, even though the holding in Lopez and another federalism case called Morrison would indicate that Cogress could not have fixed 922(q) by merely adding findings and a jurisdictional element of a gun travelling at some time in its life in interstate commerce. At some point, post Heller, we will see what Justices Alito and Roberts are made of.

imported post

Lopez is Still good law:

GONZALES V. RAICH 545 U.S. 1 (2005)

"To support their contrary submission, respondents rely heavily on two of our more recent Commerce Clause cases. In their myopic focus, they overlook the larger context of modern-era Commerce Clause jurisprudence preserved by those cases. Moreover, even in the narrow prism of respondents’ creation, they read those cases far too broadly. Those two cases, of course, are Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, and Morrison, 529 U.S. 598. As an initial matter, the statutory challenges at issue in those cases were markedly different from the challenge respondents pursue in the case at hand. Here, respondents ask us to excise individual applications of a concededly valid statutory scheme. In contrast, in both Lopez and Morrison, the parties asserted that a particular statute or provision fell outside Congress’ commerce power in its entirety. This distinction is pivotal for we have often reiterated that “[w]here the class of activities is regulated and that class is within the reach of federal power, the courts have no power ‘to excise, as trivial, individual instances’ of the class.” Perez, 402 U.S., at 154 (emphasis deleted) (quoting Wirtz, 392 U.S., at 193); see also Hodel, 452 U.S., at 308. At issue in Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, was the validity of the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, which was a brief, single-subject statute making it a crime for an individual to possess a gun in a school zone. 104 Stat. 4844—4845, 18 U.S.C. § 922(q)(1)(A). The Act did not regulate any economic activity and did not contain any requirement that the possession of a gun have any connection to past interstate activity or a predictable impact on future commercial activity. Distinguishing our earlier cases holding that comprehensive regulatory statutes may be validly applied to local conduct that does not, when viewed in isolation, have a significant impact on interstate commerce, we held the statute invalid. We explained:

“Section 922(q) is a criminal statute that by its terms has nothing to do with ‘commerce’ or any sort of economic enterprise, however broadly one might define those terms. Section 922(q) is not an essential part of a larger regulation of economic activity, in which the regulatory scheme could be undercut unless the intrastate activity were regulated. It cannot, therefore, be sustained under our cases upholding regulations of activities that arise out of or are connected with a commercial transaction, which viewed in the aggregate, substantially affects interstate commerce.” 514 U.S., at 561."

imported post

It is my understanding that the GFSZA has traditionally been used to "stack up" additional charges when convenient. The DA (or whoever has power to make plea agreements) will offer to drop theGFSZA charge in exchange for testimony, cooperation, or information which furthers the overall investigation.

imported post

So wait, if I park on the street, I can't even access my vehicle, nor my mailbox?

Isn't that negatively affecting interstate commerce everytime I order something on the internet?

imported post

It is an unconstitutional law that hasn't been ruled as such.

imported post

There was a firefighter in my home town that got the cops called on him for brandishing a weapon in front of a school...... He was watering his lawn with a pistol gripped sprayer. lol

imported post

"Isn't that negatively affecting interstate commerce everytime I order something on the internet?"

The Case cited above quoting Lopez was precisely settled on the grounds that the GFSZA had nothing to do with interstate commerce and therefore was unconstitutional.

"“Section 922(q) is a criminal statute that by its terms has nothing to do with ‘commerce’ or any sort of economic enterprise, however broadly one might define those terms. Section 922(q) is not an essential part of a larger regulation of economic activity, in which the regulatory scheme could be undercut unless the intrastate activity were regulated. It cannot, therefore, be sustained under our cases upholding regulations of activities that arise out of or are connected with a commercial transaction, which viewed in the aggregate, substantially affects interstate commerce.” 514 U.S., at 561."

imported post

Sea_Chicken wrote:

There was a firefighter in my home town that got the cops called on him for brandishing a weapon in front of a school...... He was watering his lawn with a pistol gripped sprayer. lol

Click to expand...