school zones

imported post

[suB]I see people are obsessed with school zones in many posts. If you have a permit it is a mute point. If the permit is not from Utah (like mine) it is still a mute point as far as state law. Is anyone aware of one single Federal prosecution? Officers don't have the authority to enforce Federal Laws....[/suB]

imported post

If the LEO is knowledgeable on the subject - you don't assume they would contact said agency? Just a Q.

imported post

Do you know of any such case? They (police)are instructed not to contact ICE for illegals.... Technically they need a state or local offense to detain you before contacting the feds. Just wondering, since I believe that federal school zone law is not enforced in most states and it shouldn't be.

imported post

I guess I'm just not as ready to dangle the proverbial carrot in front of the feds as some..:?
Its the same as speeding when no one is looking. Four wheeling where you're not supposed to be, but don't get caught. I just enjoy doing the right thing and not temping fate or the authorities who have the power to take me from my family.

Case law or not. ITS LAW.

According to your thought process, its OK to CC, without a CFP so long as you don't get caught?

imported post

ProtectedBy9mm wrote:

...snip...According to your thought process, its OK to CC, without a CFP so long as you don't get caught?

Click to expand...

Well at least for me it depends on what you mean by "OK". Assuming you really didn't get caught then it is obviously OK from the perspective of you don't get punished. If by OK you mean is it legal, well then obviously not.

If by OK you mean is it not morally acceptable, well then I think that gets interesting. Suppose you are a very religious person and a law is passed that makes it illegal to pray. Do you secretly pray anyway because you feel it is the right thing to do even though it is illegal?

Some small set of people will obey the law in all cases regardless of if it is moral or not. Another small set will disregard absolutely any law they feel is immoral regardless of the consequences. For most, this sort of thing becomes a matter of weighing the risks. In that case, I would call CC without a CFP OK if the risk of being caught (and its associated penalty) is perceived to be less than the risk of not being able to defend myself.

I would consider myself a law abiding citizen, but there are times in my personal life where my risk analysis process leads me to break the law (e.g. I've crossed many an empty street without walking all the way down to the corner and using crosswalk -- jaywalking).

The ease of obtaining a CFP in our State makes this an easy choice for me (i.e. I just got my permit). If our laws were such that I could not obtain a permit, there are certain high risk places where I would still choose to carry a gun (assuming I couldn't simply avoid those places).

imported post

Check it out: I'll spell it out clearly:

Jail, prison, camp-Fed; its not for me. i will not do ANYTHING that will give anyone the opportunity to put my in a cell. I wasn't made for it, I'm too damn pretty.

So by all means, if you feel confident enough to share a cell with 400 pounds of horny - then risk what ya'll want to. My .02? I don't want to be caged.

I feel badly that any LEO stumbling across this page may be feeling completely validated with thinking that OCers are a bunch of nuts just waiting to break the law.

I mean, are ya'll reading what you're posting?? Advocating to break FEDERAL laws in an OC forum where many LEOs frequent JUST to validate their scewed sense of reality and opinions on the 2a.

When i read the crap on the forums of Officer.com regarding OCers it really pisses me off. Then i realize they might be reading threads like this and to someone with such a big ego and opinions such as some small amount of LEOs--- I can see how easy it must be for them to justify their screwed up actions twards us in public.

Oh well, What do I know.....

imported post

Well I think that the 1000' away from a school thing should be re-written, as it impedes the 2A right... which actually says "SHALL NOT be infringed" and to me, that means that absolutely nothing can stand in the way of you bearing arms. I do agree with you Protectedby9mm, so this is not focused towards you... I want to know what we can do to get this school zone thing taken out, since it is an illegal law. (my dad used to be able to take a rifle to school back when he was a kid... sure, there were 12 kids in the entire school, but still!)

imported post

b1ack5mith wrote:

Well I think that the 1000' away from a school thing should be re-written, as it impedes the 2A right... which actually says "SHALL NOT be infringed" and to me, that means that absolutely nothing can stand in the way of you bearing arms. I do agree with you Protectedby9mm, so this is not focused towards you... I want to know what we can do to get this school zone thing taken out, since it is an illegal law. (my dad used to be able to take a rifle to school back when he was a kid... sure, there were 12 kids in the entire school, but still!)

Click to expand...

+1,000 Black5mith

While i DO NOT agree with the written law, i still feel the need to adhere by it.
Just as with HB357, now we can carry loaded in our cars, CFP or not, it should have ALWAYS been that way; but it wasn't. When i didn't have my CFP i adhered to the law. Now that it changed, if i still didn't have my CFP, i WOULD be carrying loaded in the car ( of course i retain my cfp, for me, is pointless).

Instead of OPENLY breaking the law, we should, indeed, try our hardest to change it. i don't think we change it by PROVING that we are lawless nut jobs that will do whatever we damn well please.

There is a process for success.

imported post

ProtectedBy9mm wrote:

Jail, prison, camp-Fed; its not for me. i will not do ANYTHING that will give anyone the opportunity to put my in a cell.

Click to expand...

I would suggest that you not carry a weapon at all then. More than one person has gone to jail after using a weapon to defend themselves or their loved ones. You draw your weapon and shoot and your opinion of whether it was justifiable will not matter. An officer, judge, jury, etc. will make that call.

Not sure if you are married, but suppose you were in a defense situation and you knew ahead of time that if you chose to shoot your attacker you would go to jail and that if you chose not to shoot you would be knocked unconscious and your wife would be raped by the attacker. Given this foreknowledge, would you really choose not to shoot?

As for me, I would shoot. If one of us has to deal with 400lb of horny, I'd rather it be me than my wife...

"Advocating to break FEDERAL laws in an OC forum where many LEOs frequent"

Click to expand...

Not sure who you are talking about here. I certainly have never advocated breaking the law. I did say that I had broken laws in the past (specifically jaywalking). I also said that if our laws were different then under some circumstances I would probably choose to break them. However, this hypothetical is just that. In reality, I've been extremely careful to comply with ALL firearm related laws and encourage others to do likewise.

All I said is that most people do not have absolutes in these things and instead evaluate the situation and risks before deciding on a course of action. If you really do hold to your absolute that you would never under any circumstance do "ANYTHING" that might lead to imprisonment then you and I are very different people.

imported post

leeland wrote:

ProtectedBy9mm wrote:

Jail, prison, camp-Fed; its not for me. i will not do ANYTHING that will give anyone the opportunity to put my in a cell.

Click to expand...

I would suggest that you not carry a weapon at all then. More than one person has gone to jail after using a weapon to defend themselves or their loved ones. You draw your weapon and shoot and your opinion of whether it was justifiable will not matter. An officer, judge, jury, etc. will make that call.

Not sure if you are married, but suppose you were in a defense situation and you knew ahead of time that if you chose to shoot your attacker you would go to jail and that if you chose not to shoot you would be knocked unconscious and your wife would be raped by the attacker. Given this foreknowledge, would you really choose not to shoot?

As for me, I would shoot. If one of us has to deal with 400lb of horny, I'd rather it be me than my wife...

"Advocating to break FEDERAL laws in an OC forum where many LEOs frequent"

Click to expand...

Not sure who you are talking about here. I certainly have never advocated breaking the law. I did say that I had broken laws in the past (specifically jaywalking), however I've been extremely careful to comply with ALL firearm related laws and encourage others to do likewise. All I said is that most people do not have absolutes it these things and instead evaluate the situation and risks before deciding on a course of action.

Click to expand...

Wow, where to start:
Should i start with the comment about me wanting to abide by laws that are written vs. the use of deadly force? I carry a gun lawfully, and if i DID have to use deadly force i would do so in the scope of the law surrounding use of deadly force laws. So... I'm still operating within the law. i would NOT be operating within the law if i or anyone OCed in a school zone without a CFP. That's pretty simple bro. 2 scenarios, 1, i am operating within the law, 2, i am NOT operating within the law. I find myself having trouble articulating this point as it is EXTREMELY SIMPLE.

Yes, i am aware that some self defense cases where the use of deadly force was envoked and the GG went to jail. Nothing I can do about that. but if i were operating within the scope of law, my lawyers will figure that mess out. So, yes, in your skewed scenario where i was knocked out and my wife was raped would not happen, as that is a clear cut case of proper usage of deadly force.

The only reason i made the comment about you advocating breaking federal laws was due to your OP. Perhaps i completely missed the mark, but is sounded, to me, as though you were saying ,"Whats the big deal about carrying CFP-less in a school zone, its not like the local fuzz can arrest you for it." Which, I decoded as ,"You can break federal laws so long as no one finds out."

I'm a bit slow, ya know.

So..... ?

imported post

+1 to protectedby9mm

leeland, even police officers get introuble for using deadly force, every time a cop shoots a bad guy, he gets sued by one person or another, every time.

I pray that I NEVER have to use my firearm on a bad guy, however, if I EVER end up using it on a bad guy, I will be in the right. Just make sure you feel that your life is in danger! or someone elses life...

imported post

ProtectedBy9mm wrote:

Wow, where to start:
Should i start with the comment about me wanting to abide by laws that are written vs. the use of deadly force? I carry a gun lawfully, and if i DID have to use deadly force i would do so in the scope of the law surrounding use of deadly force laws.
..snip...
Yes, i am aware that some self defence cases where the use of deadly force was envoked and the GG went to jail. Nothing I can do about that. but if i were operating within the scope of law, my lawyers will figure that mess out. So, yes, in your scewed scenario where i was knocked out and my wife was raped would not happen, as that is a clear cut case of proper usage of deadly force.

Click to expand...

I don't think my scenario is "screwed". Your position seems confused to me. You are aware of the fact that good guys go to jail, yet your other statements seem to indicate that our court system is perfect and that justice will always triumph.

As I indicated, your interpretation of the law wont matter in court. You can be 100% right and still do time. The idea that "my lawyers will figure that mess out" does not mean that you wont do time.

I suspect that we are closer in opinion than you think. I was really only pushing you on your statement that you wouldn't do "ANYTHING" that might lead to jail-time. I could think of plenty of cases where I would risk jail-time to do what I felt was morally justified (such as using my weapon and coming to the aid of a victim). I was curious if you really felt the way that I understood your post to mean that you did.

imported post

leeland wrote:

ProtectedBy9mm wrote:

Wow, where to start:
Should i start with the comment about me wanting to abide by laws that are written vs. the use of deadly force? I carry a gun lawfully, and if i DID have to use deadly force i would do so in the scope of the law surrounding use of deadly force laws.
..snip...
Yes, i am aware that some self defence cases where the use of deadly force was envoked and the GG went to jail. Nothing I can do about that. but if i were operating within the scope of law, my lawyers will figure that mess out. So, yes, in your scewed scenario where i was knocked out and my wife was raped would not happen, as that is a clear cut case of proper usage of deadly force.

Click to expand...

I don't think my scenario is "screwed". Your position seems confused to me. You are aware of the fact that good guys go to jail, yet your other statements seem to indicate that our court system is perfect and that justice will always triumph.

As I indicated, your interpretation of the law wont matter in court. You can be 100% right and still do time. The idea that "my lawyers will figure that mess out" does not mean that you wont do time.

I suspect that we are closer in opinion than you think. I was really only pushing you on your statement that you wouldn't do "ANYTHING" that might lead to jail-time. I could think of plenty of cases where I would risk jail-time to do what I felt was morally justified (such as using my weapon and coming to the aid of a victim). I was curious if you really felt the way that I understood your post to mean that you did.

Click to expand...

Ok, YES: i should have differentiated between doing ILLEGAL things, , like OCing 1000' from School Zones. and doing things that COULD land you in Jail, like driving.

Short list of things that COULD land me in Jail if done improperly but are legal:

Driving
Drinking
Smoking cigarettes
Baby Sitting

Short list of things that WILL land me in Jail every time:

Smacking a Police officer
Child Abuse
Smoking Marijuana
Hijacking someones Pinto
etc...

There are things that CAN land you in jail and things that WILL land you in Jail. Proper usage of deadly force IS NOT one of those that WILL land you in jail. OCing within 1000' of a school zone and the Feds find out, yup, you guess it: WILL land you in jail.

We're on the same team bro. carry often and do it smartly - just trying to help a fellow carrier out man.

imported post

b1ack5mith wrote:

I pray that I NEVER have to use my firearm on a bad guy, however, if I EVER end up using it on a bad guy, I will be in the right. Just make sure you feel that your life is in danger! or someone elses life...

Click to expand...

I also hope that I never have to use my weapon. My guideline has always been that if it's not worth dying for then it's not worth shooting. Someone wants my wallet, they can have it. Someone breaks into my home, if I can sneak safely out the back door and avoid the confrontation I will, etc. etc. I'd hope that even if everything went utterly wrong with the courts and when all the smoke had cleared from criminal or civil lawsuits I found myself destitute and serving time that I would still be able to say "I was justified and I'd do it again." I may not like the consequences, but I could deal with them in that case.

imported post

ProtectedBy9mm wrote:

Short list of things that WILL land me in Jail every time:

Child Abuse
Smoking Marijuana
Hijacking someones Pinto
etc...

There are things that CAN land you in jail and things that WILL land you in Jail. Proper usage of deadly force IS NOT one of those that WILL land you in jail. OCing within 1000' of a school zone and the Feds find out, yup, you guess it: WILL land you in jail.

Click to expand...

We're definitely on the same team as you say, but it seems like you are just adding evidence to the original poster's (not me by the way) idea. Child abuse, smoking marijuana, etc. all only lead to jail time if you get caught and are successfully prosecuted. Volunteer work with Utah Family Services has unfortunately allowed me to see people guilty of child abuse that were caught still not go to jail due to poor prosecution in court or some other triviality.

The original poster didn't advocate OC on school grounds. He just asked if anyone was aware of a single case where this had been prosecuted successfully. I suppose one possible implication was that it would be OK to do it if you could "get away with it", but the OP certainly didn't say that. That was your interpretation (and rhetorical question).

imported post

I was operation under the false assumption that you were the OP..

imported post

It is a mute point to worry about a completely unenforced law that already was struck down once by the Supreme court, although it was passed again with the sentence "if the gun was used in interstate commerce" added to it, just to bring it under federal jurisdiction with the interstate commerce clause. Officers don't sweat the small stuff. These gutless wimps claiming to be officers and worrying about us open carrying people and our posts are just that: a shame on the police profession. If any of you officers are offended contact me with pm. I don't know any officer enforcing any federal law ever in the metroplex area in Texas. I bet the same is truein Utah. As I said we don't sweat the small stuff, that's how real cops roll! And I am not advocating breaking the law, I started this discussion to find out what the reality on the ground is.... so to speak!

imported post

Oops, double post

imported post

Count wrote:

It is a mute point to worry about a completely unenforced law that already was struck down once by the Supreme court, although it was passed again with the sentence "if the gun was used in interstate commerce" added to it, just to bring it under federal jurisdiction with the interstate commerce clause. Officers don't sweat the small stuff.

Click to expand...

I agree, mostly. I think the fact that re-passed law has been on the books for 14 years now without a single prosecution (AFAICT) is pretty strong evidence that you really don't have to worry too much about it. Particularly since the previous version was struck down as unconstitutional the one time it was used.

It's better to avoid breaking that law if you can. Get a permit from the state you're in. If that's not feasible (maybe you're not there long enough), then avoid school zones where it's reasonable to do so.

For example, I was looking at buying a house in Idaho and was lawfully concealing with my Utah CFP while driving around. One house I wanted to look at is within 1000 feet of a school zone. Were I to buy that house and live there, I'd get an Idaho permit and be legal. But I wasn't going to refuse to go look at the house, or unload and lock up my gun on the vanishingly small chance that I might run into some police officer, who might realize I was breaking a federal law and hold me and call the FBI, who might decide it's worth their time to come get me and refer the issue to the US Attorney, who might decide it's a good career move for him to be the first to test the constitutionality of this questionable law, and to do it in the context of charges against a law-abiding gun owner who was harming no one.

BTW, the word is "moot", not "mute".

imported post

swillden wrote:

I agree, mostly. I think the fact that re-passed law has been on the books for 14 years now without a single prosecution (AFAICT) is pretty strong evidence that you really don't have to worry too much about it. Particularly since the previous version was struck down as unconstitutional the one time it was used.

It's better to avoid breaking that law if you can. Get a permit from the state you're in. If that's not feasible (maybe you're not there long enough), then avoid school zones where it's reasonable to do so.

Click to expand...

It is my personal opinion that the primary purpose of the federal gun free school zone at this point is to encourage States to keep State gun free school zone laws on their books. While the federal law would likely not survive a second court challenge, there is no reason to think a State law would not be upheld, at least until we can "incorporate" the 2nd amendment against the States as has been done with most of the rest of the Bill of Rights.

That said, I agree with Swillden's philosophy of avoiding violation of laws (and gun laws in particular) whenever reasonable/possible. First of all, I've better things to do than defend against a needless criminal charge. Second of all, I feel a personal responsibility NOT to be "that" gun owner who is not law abiding that gives us all a bad name.

I've spent a LOT of my personal time and energy and some amount of money the last 15 years working to repeal bad gun laws rather than just ignoring them because my odds of getting caught were low. Even after getting a permit, I worked to help push through the "car carry" bill. I also worked for several years to get the "parking lot preemption" bill passed into law.

If everyone who is annoyed by a bad law would work to repeal that law, rather than just ignoring it because they are not likely to get caught, we'd have a lot fewer bad laws on the books.

Charles