Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: School zones... again

  1. #1
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705

    Post imported post

    Seeing yet more threads about the Gun Free School Zone insanity, I thought I might ought to check the map.

    It turns out that while my house is not within 1000 feet, it is literally impossible for me to leave my subdivision without passing to within 640 feet from the corner edge of an Elementary School property... and here's the kicker, the roads to access the school are nowhere near my subdivision. In order to drive from the exit of my subdivision to the school property, the shortest road distance is ~1,750 feet.

    This is very, very irritating. When will this bad law get the attention it needs to be repealed?

    TFred


  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Alexandria, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    164

    Post imported post

    TFred wrote:
    Seeing yet more threads about the Gun Free School Zone insanity, I thought I might ought to check the map.

    It turns out that while my house is not within 1000 feet, it is literally impossible for me to leave my subdivision without passing to within 640 feet from the corner edge of an Elementary School property... and here's the kicker, the roads to access the school are nowhere near my subdivision. In order to drive from the exit of my subdivision to the school property, the shortest road distance is ~1,750 feet.

    This is very, very irritating. When will this bad law get the attention it needs to be repealed?

    TFred
    I think it was their intent to make it impossible to go anywhere. At least I think that was the intent of the people who pushed for the law. I haven't checked any maps, but I'm pretty sure I can't really go very far from my house without being within 1000 feet of a school.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Falls Church, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    226

    Post imported post


    "I think it was their intent to make it impossible to go anywhere. At least I think that was the intent of the people who pushed for the law. I haven't checked any maps, but I'm pretty sure I can't really go very far from my house without being within 1000 feet of a school."

    Off topic I know, but:

    I read somewhere where laws like these are why released sex offenders are hoarding in "comune" like areas. (keeping them from living and moving around)

    Back on topic, I think I am within 1000' also, if I exit towards the school in my area. I just go the other way.



    Carl

  4. #4
    Regular Member virginiatuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Loudoun County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    788

    Post imported post

    I know you shouldn't have to, but if you did obtain a VA CHP then the Federal GFSZA would not apply to you anymore. Only VA state law would apply.

    TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 44 > § 922
    <snip>
    (A) It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.

    (B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the possession of a firearm—
    <snip>
    (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;
    <snip>

  5. #5
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705

    Post imported post

    virginiatuck wrote:
    I know you shouldn't have to, but if you did obtain a VA CHP then the Federal GFSZA would not apply to you anymore. Only VA state law would apply.

    TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 44 > § 922
    <snip>
    (A) It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.

    (B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the possession of a firearm—
    <snip>
    (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;
    <snip>
    Yes, it comes down to "shouldn't have to". I have a Utah permit, and there has been some debate as to whether this covers the requirement.

    My opinion, which is worthless for just about every purpose, is that a permit recognized by Virginia is fine, because as you note, the statute reads "licensed to do so by the State..." and the CHP reciprocity recognition wording from 18.2-308 paragraph B7 says:

    For purposes of applying the reciprocity provisions of subsection P, any person granted the privilege to carry a concealed handgun pursuant to this subdivision, while carrying the proof of consultation and favorable review required, shall be deemed to have been issued a concealed handgun permit.
    That works for me, but as I said, some (I think some government flunky even issued a similarly worthless opinion contrary to mine) say that it does not.

    TFred

    ETClarify some wording

  6. #6
    Regular Member virginiatuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Loudoun County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    788

    Post imported post

    TFred wrote:
    virginiatuck wrote:
    I know you shouldn't have to, but if you did obtain a VA CHP then the Federal GFSZA would not apply to you anymore. Only VA state law would apply.

    TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 44 > § 922
    <snip>
    (A) It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.

    (B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the possession of a firearm—
    <snip>
    (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;
    <snip>
    Yes, it comes down to "shouldn't have to". I have a Utah permit, and there has been some debate as to whether this covers the requirement.

    My opinion, which is worthless for just about every purpose, is that a permit recognized by Virginia is fine, because as you note, the statute reads "licensed to do so by the State..." and the CHP reciprocity recognition wording from 18.2-308 paragraph B7 says:

    For purposes of applying the reciprocity provisions of subsection P, any person granted the privilege to carry a concealed handgun pursuant to this subdivision, while carrying the proof of consultation and favorable review required, shall be deemed to have been issued a concealed handgun permit.
    That works for me, but as I said, some (I think some government flunky even issued a similarly worthless opinion contrary to mine) say that it does not.

    TFred

    ETClarify some wording
    I think the out-of-state permit may not be recognized, as the Federal law is worded, because of the last part of the exception:
    "[...] the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license"

    You could argue that a formal reciprocity agreement between Virginia and another state qualifies as the verification that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license. However, you'd probably still be SoL with Utah because, as far as I know, there is no formal reciprocity agreement between Virginia and Utah.

    Maybe informal recognition would be enough; particularly with Virginia since it is required that the other state, such as Utah for example, provide a 24/7 hotline or web-site for permit verification.

    Reciprocity between some states, however, does not require any sort of permit verification system. And some states have informal reciprocity with another state without condition; other states have informal reciprocity with another merely because the other state honors their own permits.


  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    US
    Posts
    3,156

    Post imported post

    TFred wrote:
    virginiatuck wrote:
    I know you shouldn't have to, but if you did obtain a VA CHP then the Federal GFSZA would not apply to you anymore. Only VA state law would apply.

    TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 44 > § 922
    <snip>
    (A) It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.

    (B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the possession of a firearm—
    <snip>
    (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;
    <snip>
    Yes, it comes down to "shouldn't have to". I have a Utah permit, and there has been some debate as to whether this covers the requirement.

    My opinion, which is worthless for just about every purpose, is that a permit recognized by Virginia is fine, because as you note, the statute reads "licensed to do so by the State..." and the CHP reciprocity recognition wording from 18.2-308 paragraph B7 says:

    For purposes of applying the reciprocity provisions of subsection P, any person granted the privilege to carry a concealed handgun pursuant to this subdivision, while carrying the proof of consultation and favorable review required, shall be deemed to have been issued a concealed handgun permit.
    That works for me, but as I said, some (I think some government flunky even issued a similarly worthless opinion contrary to mine) say that it does not.

    TFred

    ETClarify some wording
    I don't like the fact it says "granted the privilege to carry a concealed handgun". The 2nd amendment to the U.S. Constitution and our very own VA constitution says "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". It says nothing about the manner in which we bear arms, one could argue that the state is calling it a privilege when in fact it is a right. The 1st amendment protects many of our rights as well, it doesn't say we have the right to be christian and not muslim, correct? It protects our right to practice ANY religion or NO religion. Why does the 2nd amendment not protect our right to carry ANY way we want, or not at all?

  8. #8
    Regular Member virginiatuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Loudoun County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    788

    Post imported post

    nova wrote:
    I don't like the fact it says "granted the privilege to carry a concealed handgun". The 2nd amendment to the U.S. Constitution and our very own VA constitution says "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". It says nothing about the manner in which we bear arms, one could argue that the state is calling it a privilege when in fact it is a right. The 1st amendment protects many of our rights as well, it doesn't say we have the right to be christian and not muslim, correct? It protects our right to practice ANY religion or NO religion. Why does the 2nd amendment not protect our right to carry ANY way we want, or not at all?
    A better analogy might be that we may practice our religion openly or we may conceal our religion.

    Could you imagine having to be granted a permit in order to conceal your religion? Or having to register your religion?

  9. #9
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580

    Post imported post

    nova wrote:
    TFred wrote:
    virginiatuck wrote:
    I don't like the fact it says "granted the privilege to carry a concealed handgun". The 2nd amendment to the U.S. Constitution and our very own VA constitution says "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". It says nothing about the manner in which we bear arms, one could argue that the state is calling it a privilege when in fact it is a right. The 1st amendment protects many of our rights as well, it doesn't say we have the right to be christian and not muslim, correct? It protects our right to practice ANY religion or NO religion. Why does the 2nd amendment not protect our right to carry ANY way we want, or not at all?
    Do I hear the voice of reason?





  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    182

    Post imported post

    If you live in a state that either doesn't issue CCW or doesn't have background checks would an out-of-state permit from a state that does have background checks satisfy the Fed requirements.

    I agree that the law is total BS. But I wouldn't want to end up as a test case.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    US
    Posts
    3,156

    Post imported post

    Fenris wrote:
    If you live in a state that either doesn't issue CCW or doesn't have background checks would an out-of-state permit from a state that does have background checks satisfy the Fed requirements.

    I agree that the law is total BS. But I wouldn't want to end up as a test case.
    I have an atf letter pdf somewhere on my other computer that answers this question. Basically their answer was no, the permit has to be actually issued by the state the school zone is in.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Richmond, VA, ,
    Posts
    439

    Post imported post

    I never cared about the 1000 foot rule for nearly a year and I walked past plenty of people, and several LEO, on the sidewalk right in front of several grade schools near me.

    I've always heard it is never a problem unless they are looking to tack another charge on you if you are caught doing something else more severe at the time.

    I am not an attorney.

  13. #13
    Regular Member Neplusultra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Christiansburg, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,228

    Post imported post

    virginiatuck wrote:
    nova wrote:
    I don't like the fact it says "granted the privilege to carry a concealed handgun". The 2nd amendment to the U.S. Constitution and our very own VA constitution says "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". It says nothing about the manner in which we bear arms, one could argue that the state is calling it a privilege when in fact it is a right. The 1st amendment protects many of our rights as well, it doesn't say we have the right to be christian and not muslim, correct? It protects our right to practice ANY religion or NO religion. Why does the 2nd amendment not protect our right to carry ANY way we want, or not at all?
    A better analogy might be that we may practice our religion openly or we may conceal our religion.

    Could you imagine having to be granted a permit in order to conceal your religion? Or having to register your religion?
    Nice way to put it. Best keep your religion 1000' from any K-12 :^).

  14. #14
    Regular Member Neplusultra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Christiansburg, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,228

    Post imported post

    curtiswr wrote:
    I never cared about the 1000 foot rule for nearly a year and I walked past plenty of people, and several LEO, on the sidewalk right in front of several grade schools near me.

    I've always heard it is never a problem unless they are looking to tack another charge on you if you are caught doing something else more severe at the time.

    I am not an attorney.
    Heck, the biggest shopping center in town where I live is right next to the HS. Wouldn't there be some "free commerce" issues with that? Not a constitutional lawyer here. But I've been going to Walmart for years and not a peep from anyone. And I'm sure everyone in town, especially the LEOs :^), know I carry.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    US
    Posts
    3,156

    Post imported post

    curtiswr wrote:
    I never cared about the 1000 foot rule for nearly a year and I walked past plenty of people, and several LEO, on the sidewalk right in front of several grade schools near me.

    I've always heard it is never a problem unless they are looking to tack another charge on you if you are caught doing something else more severe at the time.

    I am not an attorney.
    I've HEARD the same thing. But the fact remains, the law is there and they CAN charge you anytime you happen to be within their 'zone'.



  16. #16
    Regular Member Neplusultra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Christiansburg, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,228

    Post imported post

    nova wrote:
    curtiswr wrote:
    I never cared about the 1000 foot rule for nearly a year and I walked past plenty of people, and several LEO, on the sidewalk right in front of several grade schools near me.

    I've always heard it is never a problem unless they are looking to tack another charge on you if you are caught doing something else more severe at the time.

    I am not an attorney.
    I've HEARD the same thing. But the fact remains, the law is there and they CAN charge you anytime you happen to be within their 'zone'.

    It's the "everyone's a felon", in that there are so many laws everyone violates who knows how many everyday. It gives the government the power to control and arrest whenever they choose more or less. Are you going 75 on the interstate? We can pull you over and ticket you. You'll get out of it (in this example) but look what you have to do to do so...

    We, IMO, have a lot of work to do to clean up this kind of stuff. GFSZs are only one of them. But clean them up we must. Which is one reason I think we should get behind the guy arrested in DC for having a shotgun with him. More information is needed to see if he was "innocently unawares" or a nutjob before taking a stand though.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    nova wrote:
    curtiswr wrote:
    I never cared about the 1000 foot rule for nearly a year and I walked past plenty of people, and several LEO, on the sidewalk right in front of several grade schools near me.

    I've always heard it is never a problem unless they are looking to tack another charge on you if you are caught doing something else more severe at the time.

    I am not an attorney.
    I've HEARD the same thing. But the fact remains, the law is there and they CAN charge you anytime you happen to be within their 'zone'.

    Exactly. Stupid laws that get ignored are srill dangerous. They hang over your head like the sword of Damocles.

    For instance, let's say there's a forgotten, never-enforced law from 1850 on the books that says you may not wear a red shirt.

    The local policeman has a grudge against you.

    So he follows you around until one day you decide to wear a red shirt. Gotcha, Damocles!

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...0120-8842A.jpg

  18. #18
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705

    Post imported post

    nova wrote:
    Fenris wrote:
    If you live in a state that either doesn't issue CCW or doesn't have background checks would an out-of-state permit from a state that does have background checks satisfy the Fed requirements.

    I agree that the law is total BS. But I wouldn't want to end up as a test case.
    I have an atf letter pdf somewhere on my other computer that answers this question. Basically their answer was no, the permit has to be actually issued by the state the school zone is in.
    This is the "similarly worthless opinion" that I referenced in my post. I've read it, but didn't save a copy. IIRC, it was rather old, and not issued by anyone of particular import.

    TFred

  19. #19
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705

    Post imported post

    I think the out-of-state permit may not be recognized, as the Federal law is worded, because of the last part of the exception:
    "[...] the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license"

    You could argue that a formal reciprocity agreement between Virginia and another state qualifies as the verification that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license. However, you'd probably still be SoL with Utah because, as far as I know, there is no formal reciprocity agreement between Virginia and Utah.

    Maybe informal recognition would be enough; particularly with Virginia since it is required that the other state, such as Utah for example, provide a 24/7 hotline or web-site for permit verification.

    Reciprocity between some states, however, does not require any sort of permit verification system. And some states have informal reciprocity with another state without condition; other states have informal reciprocity with another merely because the other state honors their own permits.
    Ah, I overlooked that part. I wonder if it matters if the requirements for both states are essentially the same, when it comes to the background check? Whether reciprocity or recognition, I don't think Virginia would allow a Utah permit if they were not satisfied with the process for determining qualification.

    All these are questions that should not have to be answered, but also for which nobody wants to be the test case to find the answers.

    It's very infuriating.

    And PS... if your view on the matter ends up being correct, the Feds have literally quashed all state-to-state agreements for reciprocity when it comes to this particular "gotcha" law. In order to not be a GFSZ felon, one would have to obtain a permit for every state they intended to carry within 1000' of a school.

    TFred


  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    US
    Posts
    3,156

    Post imported post

    TFred wrote:
    nova wrote:
    Fenris wrote:
    If you live in a state that either doesn't issue CCW or doesn't have background checks would an out-of-state permit from a state that does have background checks satisfy the Fed requirements.

    I agree that the law is total BS. But I wouldn't want to end up as a test case.
    I have an atf letter pdf somewhere on my other computer that answers this question. Basically their answer was no, the permit has to be actually issued by the state the school zone is in.
    This is the "similarly worthless opinion" that I referenced in my post. I've read it, but didn't save a copy. IIRC, it was rather old, and not issued by anyone of particular import.

    TFred
    well in that case I'd like to see a federal court try someone who has a reciprical permit when state law says for the purpose it shall be considered a CHP. I would like to pass on being the test case however.

Posting Permissions

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