Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Gun Free Safe Zone California Made Guns

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Las Vegas, NV
    Posts
    1,140

    Post imported post

    Anyone brought up that the GFSZ would in theory be unenforceable with California made guns?

    Has anyone as a defense pointed out that you must prove "firearm has moved in or otherwise affects interstate commerce." as part of this law?

    Just curious, doing some reading today

    edit: I just noticed there is a local california law, right?

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    642

    Post imported post

    Pace wrote:
    Anyone brought up that the GFSZ would in theory be unenforceable with California made guns?

    Has anyone as a defense pointed out that you must prove "firearm has moved in or otherwise affects interstate commerce." as part of this law?

    Just curious, doing some reading today

    edit: I just noticed there is a local california law, right?
    already lost...
    When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Alamo Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Pagosa Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    119

    Post imported post

    I believe you are slightly mistaken. Are you referring to the Federal GFSZ? Or Kommiefornias? Because they are two and separate. If California had no State GFSZ then a defence against Federal would probably be viable.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Las Vegas, NV
    Posts
    1,140

    Post imported post

    Well, that is why I added an edit, just realized you had a California GFSZ.

    Alamo Jack wrote:
    I believe you are slightly mistaken. Are you referring to the Federal GFSZ? Or Kommiefornias? Because they are two and separate. If California had no State GFSZ then a defence against Federal would probably be viable.

  5. #5
    Regular Member Alamo Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Pagosa Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    119

    Post imported post

    Ok I didn't notice your edit there. It would be nice if there were only the Federal GFSZ to deal with. Unfortunately I don't really think there's a loophole in California's law. It needs to be abolished.

  6. #6
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748

    Post imported post

    Please remember that the Federal GFSZ is unconstitutional and has been ruled unconstitutional, and is hence invalid. True, it's on the books, but the Supreme Court has said congress doesn't have the authority to enact such legislation. I regularly violate the federal GFSZ act, and I regularly post about it, and I have yet to get a phone call from a federal prosecutor.

  7. #7
    Regular Member Alamo Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Pagosa Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    119

    Post imported post

    Yah I never gave a damn about the federal GFSZ anyways. I live in Colorado and as far as we're concerned, anywhere off school property is fair game. And on school property provided said firearm in locked in your vehicle.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Las Vegas, NV
    Posts
    1,140

    Post imported post

    You are correct and also incorrect.

    The first version was called "unconstitutional" and then they rewrote it, and SCOTUS hasn't ruled on this version.

    I agree that it's still unconstitutional, the GFSZ has nothing to do with interstate commerce.

    bigtoe416 wrote:
    Please remember that the Federal GFSZ is unconstitutional and has been ruled unconstitutional, and is hence invalid. True, it's on the books, but the Supreme Court has said congress doesn't have the authority to enact such legislation. I regularly violate the federal GFSZ act, and I regularly post about it, and I have yet to get a phone call from a federal prosecutor.

  9. #9
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748

    Post imported post

    Well, technically you may be correct, but their "rewrite" consisted of them adding twelve or so words which were along the lines of, "we are granted this ability under the interstate commerce portion of Article 1, Section 8 of the constitution." Unfortunately for the losers in D.C., the case that ruled the federal GFSZ law unconstitutional, U.S. v. Lopez, has explicit language stating that the interstate commerce clause doesn't allow congress to pass such laws.

Posting Permissions

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