• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Gun Free Safe Zone California Made Guns

P

Pace

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2009
Messages
1,140
Location
Las Vegas, NV
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?
 
D

dirtykoala

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2009
Messages
644
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?
Click to expand...
already lost...
 
fighting_for_freedom

fighting_for_freedom

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
223
Location
Pagosa Springs, Colorado, USA
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.
 
P

Pace

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2009
Messages
1,140
Location
Las Vegas, NV
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.
Click to expand...
 
fighting_for_freedom

fighting_for_freedom

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
223
Location
Pagosa Springs, Colorado, USA
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.
 
bigtoe416

bigtoe416

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jun 3, 2008
Messages
1,747
Location
Oregon
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.
 
fighting_for_freedom

fighting_for_freedom

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
223
Location
Pagosa Springs, Colorado, USA
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.
 
P

Pace

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2009
Messages
1,140
Location
Las Vegas, NV
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.
Click to expand...
 
bigtoe416

bigtoe416

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jun 3, 2008
Messages
1,747
Location
Oregon
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top