The "1000" foot rule for schools

peter nap · Sep 27, 2008

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

Last night before bed I thought about homes next to the school.

If this US Law was applied to every situation it would effectively disarm everyone including those in their own homes. There is NO exclusions that I could see.

But what it all comes down to is the application and use.

The feds are NOT going to bother taking this to court if you have not broken some other law that makes it worthy.

The same goes for the wearing a mask in public in Virginia. Sure... you cannot wear one but how many cops are going to lock you up for wearing a mask while you shovel the snow???

The purpose is to nail those that wear a mark and commit a crime. The school distance is the same thing. It just gives leverage to an existing crime.

Many departments do go after trivial things like the mask law 229. Sometimes it's just bad blood, sometimes, bad cops. Thankfully the mask law has gone through the appellate courts (I don't have the cite right now) and pretty much gutted it. It is now illegal to wear a mask with "The intent to deceive".

The officer has to prove intent.

The 1000 foot law is still the law. To say, It's OK, the police will use good judgment is like putting money in a bank owned by the Soprano's.

WE NEED TO PUSH UNTIL IT'S CHANGED!!

mkl · Sep 27, 2008

imported post

"Last night before bed I thought about homes next to the school.
If this US Law was applied to every situation it would effectively disarm everyone including those in their own homes. There is NO exclusions that I could see."

Well, Let me help you with that. The exclusion you are looking for is the first one, the one that says this law does not apply on private property. See? So it does not disarm anyone in their own home. There are a list of other exclusions as well, including having a license from the state the school is in, among others.

" It just gives leverage to an existing crime."

Can you give me a cite where it says that? Can you give me a quote from the BATF that says that is how they consider this law? Can you give an official quote from ANY federal official or attorney general that says they will not prosecute for this crime by itself?

No. Just because you say it, does not make it true. This is a law. It does not have any restriction about it needing to be used in conjunction with another crime.

If you would like a letter from the BATF about this law see,
http://www.handgunlaw.us/documents/batf_school_zone.pdf

To sum again, I do not believe the federal government is actively pursuing arresting people for breaking this law by itself. It is however still a law, and the action it defines is still illegal.
Just because you may not get arrested and charged, does not make it legal. Carrying a gun with no permit with 1000 feet of a school without meeting any of the exceptions, IS ILLEGAL.

I think it is strange that people think that because this law is so horrible that it effectively disarms all non-permit holders, that the law can't possibly be true. Guess what, this is a horrible law that at any time the government could start to enforce, and it will make it horrible for all gun owners. The police have probable cause to stop any carriers to check their permit anywhere within 1000 feet of a school. It is the current law. This is just laying in wait for a situation where it could be potentially used to make it extremely difficult for gun owners, until it is overturned again by the supreme court.

mkl · Sep 27, 2008

imported post

Just for more information on the topic, and because I find it interesting...

Montana citizens don't seem to have to worry about the GFSZA, check out
Montana code 45-8-360.
Montana has passed a law saying that ALL people lawfully able to carry a gun are considered "licensed" for the purposes of the GFSZA...Nice work Montana.

http://data.opi.state.mt.us/bills/mca/45/8/45-8-360.htm

"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."

AbNo · Sep 27, 2008

imported post

mkl wrote:

Montana code 45-8-360.
Montana has passed a law saying that ALL people lawfully able to carry a gun are considered "licensed" for the purposes of the GFSZA...Nice work Montana.

http://data.opi.state.mt.us/bills/mca/45/8/45-8-360.htm

I wonder if we could get something like that passed here?

matt605 · Sep 28, 2008

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

The feds are NOT going to bother taking this to court if you have not broken some other law that makes it worthy.

The same goes for the wearing a mask in public in Virginia. Sure... you cannot wear one but how many cops are going to lock you up for wearing a mask while you shovel the snow???

The purpose is to nail those that wear a mark and commit a crime. The school distance is the same thing. It just gives leverage to an existing crime.

Why can't police use existing laws to enforce the law?

It's like convicting Al Capone for tax evasion because they could not convict him for they myriad ofviolent crimes that he was alleged to have committed. At first, the tax evasion approach lookscunning. With some reflection though, it is abusive. Eventually the alcohol gangs were disbanded when the government relented and made alcohol legal again. Popular support for alcohol is what made Al Capone Al Capone. Government opposition to alcohol is what made government pervert the law to achieve its otherwise unattainable goals.

(And I think the mask laws were enacted as anti-Klan measures, not anti-snow removal measures, but I could be mistaken given the snowfall amounts and other factors like television programmig.)

:dude:

possumboy · Sep 28, 2008

imported post

matt605 wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

The feds are NOT going to bother taking this to court if you have not broken some other law that makes it worthy.

The same goes for the wearing a mask in public in Virginia. Sure... you cannot wear one but how many cops are going to lock you up for wearing a mask while you shovel the snow???

The purpose is to nail those that wear a mark and commit a crime. The school distance is the same thing. It just gives leverage to an existing crime.

Click to expand...

Why can't police use existing laws to enforce the law?

It's like convicting Al Capone for tax evasion because they could not convict him for they myriad ofviolent crimes that he was alleged to have committed. At first, the tax evasion approach lookscunning. With some reflection though, it is abusive. Eventually the alcohol gangs were disbanded when the government relented and made alcohol legal again. Popular support for alcohol is what made Al Capone Al Capone. Government opposition to alcohol is what made government pervert the law to achieve its otherwise unattainable goals.

(And I think the mask laws were enacted as anti-Klan measures, not anti-snow removal measures, but I could be mistaken given the snowfall amounts and other factors like television programmig.)

:dude:

The whole shoveling snow thing does not fall under the law anyway. It has exceptions for private property, and trades.

If you shovel snow for a living, a mask would be part of the trade to protect your lungs and face from the cold.

Now, if you are shoveling snow somewhere you shouldn't be, then they may have something on you.

Don't ask me how I know.

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+coh+18.2-422+400103

SouthernBoy · Sep 28, 2008

imported post

The mask laws go out the window anyway when Halloween rolls around. If they were enforced, more than half of the young kids in the state would be arrested.

mkl · Sep 28, 2008

imported post

SouthernBoy wrote:

The mask laws go out the window anyway when Halloween rolls around. If they were enforced, more than half of the young kids in the state would be arrested.

That mask law only applies to people over the age of 16.
In addition, it doesn't apply to " wearing traditional holiday costumes;". I would think a good case could be made for halloween masks being "traditional holiday costumes"

hirundo82 · Oct 1, 2008

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

The feds are NOT going to bother taking this to court if you have not broken some other law that makes it worthy.

The same goes for the wearing a mask in public in Virginia. Sure... you cannot wear one but how many cops are going to lock you up for wearing a mask while you shovel the snow???

The purpose is to nail those that wear a mark and commit a crime. The school distance is the same thing. It just gives leverage to an existing crime.

I agree that using the 1995 GFSZA as an additional penalty for a firearms violation within a school zone is how most LEOs and prosecutors would use it. However, it is not written that way, and could be used to prosecute anyone without a permitwho OC'ed in a school zone.

This law is the reason that I am getting a Virginia CHP even though my Texas CHL is honored by Virginia. My TX permit does not exempt me from the GFSZA even though it is honored by VA (there is a published ATF opinion to this effect), and I am therefore technically in violation of federal law any time I am carrying a loaded firearm within 1000' of a school in VA.

The way similar state laws read make much more sense. I am most familiar with Texas law, which increases the category of a firearms offense by one level (eg from a class B to class A misdemeanor) if it is within 300' of a school.

matt605 · Oct 1, 2008

imported post

hirundo82 wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

The feds are NOT going to bother taking this to court if you have not broken some other law that makes it worthy.

The same goes for the wearing a mask in public in Virginia. Sure... you cannot wear one but how many cops are going to lock you up for wearing a mask while you shovel the snow???

The purpose is to nail those that wear a mark and commit a crime. The school distance is the same thing. It just gives leverage to an existing crime.

Click to expand...

I agree that using the 1995 GFSZA as an additional penalty for a firearms violation within a school zone is how most LEOs and prosecutors would use it. However, it is not written that way, and could be used to prosecute anyone without a permitwho OC'ed in a school zone.

This law is the reason that I am getting a Virginia CHP even though my Texas CHL is honored by Virginia. My TX permit does not exempt me from the GFSZA even though it is honored by VA (there is a published ATF opinion to this effect), and I am therefore technically in violation of federal law any time I am carrying a loaded firearm within 1000' of a school in VA.

The way similar state laws read make much more sense. I am most familiar with Texas law, which increases the category of a firearms offense by one level (eg from a class B to class A misdemeanor) if it is within 300' of a school.

If you are convicted of a firearm-related crime does that prevent you from purchasing firearms in the future?
:dude:

LEO 229 · Oct 2, 2008

imported post

matt605 wrote:

If you are convicted of a firearm-related crime does that prevent you from purchasing firearms in the future?
:dude:

Only if it is a felony charge.

Or you pull a gun on your immediate family or girlfriend you live with. :uhoh:

matt605 · Oct 2, 2008

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

Or you pull a gun on your immediate family or girlfriend you live with. :uhoh:

How is that established in court?

:dude:

LEO 229 · Oct 2, 2008

imported post

matt605 wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

Or you pull a gun on your immediate family or girlfriend you live with. :uhoh:

Click to expand...

How is that established in court?

:dude:

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-57.2

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+16.1-228

"Family or household member" means (i) the person's spouse, whether or not he or she resides in the same home with the person, (ii) the person's former spouse, whether or not he or she resides in the same home with the person, (iii) the person's parents, stepparents, children, stepchildren, brothers, sisters, half-brothers, half-sisters, grandparents and grandchildren, regardless of whether such persons reside in the same home with the person, (iv) the person's mother-in-law, father-in-law, sons-in-law, daughters-in-law, brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law who reside in the same home with the person, (v) any individual who has a child in common with the person, whether or not the person and that individual have been married or have resided together at any time, or (vi) any individual who cohabits or who, within the previous 12 months, cohabited with the person, and any children of either of them then residing in the same home with the person.

Comp-tech · Oct 2, 2008

imported post

AbNo wrote:

mkl wrote:

Montana code 45-8-360.
Montana has passed a law saying that ALL people lawfully able to carry a gun are considered "licensed" for the purposes of the GFSZA...Nice work Montana.

http://data.opi.state.mt.us/bills/mca/45/8/45-8-360.htm

Click to expand...

I wonder if we could get something like that passed here?

Wouldn't "Full Faith and Credit" apply in all states which have a Constitutional Right to KBA?

matt605 · Oct 3, 2008

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

matt605 wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

Or you pull a gun on your immediate family or girlfriend you live with. :uhoh:

Click to expand...

How is that established in court?

:dude:

Click to expand...

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-57.2

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+16.1-228

"Family or household member" means (i) the person's spouse, whether or not he or she resides in the same home with the person, (ii) the person's former spouse, whether or not he or she resides in the same home with the person, (iii) the person's parents, stepparents, children, stepchildren, brothers, sisters, half-brothers, half-sisters, grandparents and grandchildren, regardless of whether such persons reside in the same home with the person, (iv) the person's mother-in-law, father-in-law, sons-in-law, daughters-in-law, brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law who reside in the same home with the person, (v) any individual who has a child in common with the person, whether or not the person and that individual have been married or have resided together at any time, or (vi) any individual who cohabits or who, within the previous 12 months, cohabited with the person, and any children of either of them then residing in the same home with the person.

This list of includes a lot of people for some, but how is it established in court that a person "pulled a gun" on any of them? Under these laws, what evidence is required to permanently revoke an individual's 2nd Amendment right?

:dude:

LEO 229 · Oct 3, 2008

imported post

matt605 wrote:

This list of includes a lot of people for some, but how is it established in court that a person "pulled a gun" on any of them? Under these laws, what evidence is required to permanently revoke an individual's 2nd Amendment right?

:dude:

Just like in any case that goes to court....

Your word against theirs. This type of situation happens all the time.

Think about this.....

You go to the magistrate to get a warrant because for yourneighbor because he walked his dog on your yard and you saw the dogtake a dump. The neighbor then walked offand he did not clean it up.

What evidence do you have that your neighbor is responsible?

Sure... you have a pile of poop and you saw it with your own eyes. But how does anyone know that YOUR dog is not responsible and you are not telling a lie??

Normally.... people do not go out and trump up charges. So he who sounds off first is normally given a little more weight.

But sure.... your wife could say "He pointed his gun at me and cocked the hammer!!"

You are going to be in trouble!!! The judge is going to decide who he believes. All the officer does is get the two of you into court.

ed · Oct 3, 2008

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

"...could say "He pointed his gun at me and cocked the hammer!!"

or He pointed his gun at me and the hammer was already cocked!!!"

LEO 229 · Oct 3, 2008

imported post

ed wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

"...could say "He pointed his gun at me and cocked the hammer!!"

Click to expand...

or He pointed his gun at me and the hammer was already cocked!!!"

ED!!!!! :shock: :lol:

ed · Oct 3, 2008

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

ed wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

"...could say "He pointed his gun at me and cocked the hammer!!"

Click to expand...

or He pointed his gun at me and the hammer was already cocked!!!"

Click to expand...

ED!!!!! :shock: :lol:

Condition ONE (and only): http://www.smartcarry.com/cocklock.htm

LEO 229 · Oct 3, 2008

imported post

ed wrote:

Condition ONE (and only): http://www.smartcarry.com/cocklock.htm

OK.. off the hook THIS time!

The "1000" foot rule for schools

Accomplished Advocate

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

State Researcher

Regular Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member - Moderator

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member - Moderator

Regular Member