• 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.

So I got into an argument with my wife

bigdaddy1

Regular Member
Joined
May 7, 2009
Messages
1,320
Location
Southsider der hey
imported post

We were at a school function for my son. The ROTC representatives march on stage to do the pledge of allegiance (which I am happy they still do that now a days).There were 2 flag carriers and 2escorts, but the escorts had rifles. I mentioned that the 2 boys carrying rifles were in violation of federal law and technically are committing a felony. She argued saying that its a school function and that there was no such law. My wife doesn't disapprove of my open carrying, but doesn't really approve either. She would rather ignore the subject. Anyway I also mentioned that if a cop were to walk his/her child to school while armed, the cop would also be in violation of federal law. Again she said no, the law (if such a law exists) wouldn't apply to a cop. I tried to tell her that unless the cop is there on official business he/she doesn't have the right to carry with in 1000 feet of a school. Anyway knowing that even if I proved my point, its a mute point so I dropped the subject.

So before I go on thinking I was correct with both points made, lets hear from the OC community.

Did the school have the authority to suspend federal law, and have these two boys legaly carry rifles in school? Did this constitute a federal carry crime?

If a LEO is not on duty or acting in an official capacity and are uniform or if in plain clothes armed (as ifdropping or picking up thier child for school ) would that LEO be exempt from the school zone law?
 

Dreamer

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2009
Messages
5,360
Location
Grennsboro NC
imported post

You are incorrect.

Better start planning on flowers and dinner for the wife, along with a BIG serving of crow for yourself...
The Act`s prohibitions do not apply to:
1) firearms on private property (including homes used for
home schooling);
2) unloaded firearms in a locked container or locked firearms
rack in a motor vehicle;
3) unloaded firearms possessed while traversing school
grounds to access hunting land;
4) entry authorized by the school;
5) persons licensed by state or local authorities;
6) individuals using a firearm in a school program;
7) law enforcement officers acting in an official capacity.

Also people who have "carry permits" issued by their state are exempt from the 1000-foot rule, but they may not carry on school property, unless they are in their vehicle, and do not get out of their vehicle if they stop (like to pick up a child from school). Of course, even this rule is subject to more stringent limitations depending on the state...
 

GLOCK21GB

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 22, 2009
Messages
4,347
Location
Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

Take her to a nice dinner at the Prime Quarter steakhouse in Green Bay...Best Steakhouse in Town. Grill your own steaks, enjoy some cocktails, nice conversation...the Place ROCKS !!!! .....You can Gorge on the Beef Eater, 44oz top sirloin...Yummy..
 

bigdaddy1

Regular Member
Joined
May 7, 2009
Messages
1,320
Location
Southsider der hey
imported post

Dreamer wrote:
You are incorrect.

Better start planning on flowers and dinner for the wife, along with a BIG serving of crow for yourself...
The Act`s prohibitions do not apply to:
1) firearms on private property (including homes used for
home schooling);
2) unloaded firearms in a locked container or locked firearms
rack in a motor vehicle;
3) unloaded firearms possessed while traversing school
grounds to access hunting land;
4) entry authorized by the school;
5) persons licensed by state or local authorities;
6) individuals using a firearm in a school program;
7) law enforcement officers acting in an official capacity.

Also people who have "carry permits" issued by their state are exempt from the 1000-foot rule, but they may not carry on school property, unless they are in their vehicle, and do not get out of their vehicle if they stop (like to pick up a child from school). Of course, even this rule is subject to more stringent limitations depending on the state...

Wisconsin GFSZ reads; employer of the individual; public or private lands open to hunting, if the entry on school grounds is authorized by school authorities.
[align=left]
1. On private property not part of school grounds;

[/align] [align=left]2. If the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by a political subdivision of the state or bureau of alcohol, tobacco and firearms in which political subdivision the school zone is located, and the law of the political subdivision requires that, before an individual may obtain such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the political subdivision must verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license;[/align] [align=left]3. That is not loaded and is:[/align] [align=left]a. Encased; or[/align] [align=left]b. In a locked firearms rack that is on a motor vehicle;[/align] [align=left]4. By an individual for use in a program approved by a school in the school zone;[/align]
[align=left]I admit I was wrong here, [/align] [align=left]5. By an individual in accordance with a contract entered into between a school in the school zone and the individual or an[/align] [align=left]6. By a law enforcement officer acting in his or her official capacity; or[/align]
[align=left]However this does not give permission for a LEO to carry within the school zone unless acting in "OFFICIAL CAPACITY". Dropping off thier child does not fall into that action.[/align] [align=left]7. That is unloaded and is possessed by an individual while traversing school grounds for the purpose of gaining access to[/align]



 

Pace

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2009
Messages
1,140
Location
Las Vegas, NV
imported post

ROTC drill rifles are M1 Garrard replicas.

They are not working rifles in any shape or form.


They are not "guns"



bigdaddy1 wrote:
We were at a school function for my son. The ROTC representatives march on stage to do the pledge of allegiance (which I am happy they still do that now a days).There were 2 flag carriers and 2escorts, but the escorts had rifles. I mentioned that the 2 boys carrying rifles were in violation of federal law and technically are committing a felony. She argued saying that its a school function and that there was no such law. My wife doesn't disapprove of my open carrying, but doesn't really approve either. She would rather ignore the subject. Anyway I also mentioned that if a cop were to walk his/her child to school while armed, the cop would also be in violation of federal law. Again she said no, the law (if such a law exists) wouldn't apply to a cop. I tried to tell her that unless the cop is there on official business he/she doesn't have the right to carry with in 1000 feet of a school. Anyway knowing that even if I proved my point, its a mute point so I dropped the subject.

So before I go on thinking I was correct with both points made, lets hear from the OC community.

Did the school have the authority to suspend federal law, and have these two boys legaly carry rifles in school? Did this constitute a federal carry crime?

If a LEO is not on duty or acting in an official capacity and are uniform or if in plain clothes armed (as ifdropping or picking up thier child for school ) would that LEO be exempt from the school zone law?
 

onlurker

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2009
Messages
251
Location
Everett, Washington, USA
imported post

Pace wrote:
ROTC drill rifles are M1 Garrard replicas.

They are not working rifles in any shape or form.


They are not "guns"
Rifle model makes no difference, but you're correct that they are non-working models. Even those that are considered "working" have the firing pins removed and the barrels filled so the only functionality they have is the cycling of the receiver. Pistols need to be completely non-working with the inability to cycle the slide and disassemble.
 

Pace

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2009
Messages
1,140
Location
Las Vegas, NV
imported post

Actually, most of the ROTC M1's are made specifically only to be replicas. They don't have firing pins removed, or barrels filled because they are made without any working parts now.

Yes, this has changed in the last 20 years or so slowly.
 

onlurker

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2009
Messages
251
Location
Everett, Washington, USA
imported post

How long ago were you in? My experience stems from 1998 to 2002 and my own rifle at the time (mkV mod 1 M1903A) along with our entire armory had the barrels concrete filled. Perhaps it was for balance, but a lot of the other schools we competed with had barrels filled or plugged, including the few Marine Corps JROTC that had M1 Garands. There was one particular Air Force JROTC that used replicas of the M1903 and we all got a chuckle out of them since they were 100% plastic replicas that weighed less then 3 lbs.
 

zack991

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
1,535
Location
Ohio, USA
imported post

Dreamer wrote:
You are incorrect.

Better start planning on flowers and dinner for the wife, along with a BIG serving of crow for yourself...
The Act`s prohibitions do not apply to:
1) firearms on private property (including homes used for
home schooling);
2) unloaded firearms in a locked container or locked firearms
rack in a motor vehicle;
3) unloaded firearms possessed while traversing school
grounds to access hunting land;
4) entry authorized by the school;
5) persons licensed by state or local authorities;
6) individuals using a firearm in a school program;
7) law enforcement officers acting in an official capacity.

Also people who have "carry permits" issued by their state are exempt from the 1000-foot rule, but they may not carry on school property, unless they are in their vehicle, and do not get out of their vehicle if they stop (like to pick up a child from school). Of course, even this rule is subject to more stringent limitations depending on the state...
or not tell her. As you say she think she was right anyways and does not really support you open carrying. You know if you do tell her she will always bring it up every change she gets.
 

bigdaddy1

Regular Member
Joined
May 7, 2009
Messages
1,320
Location
Southsider der hey
imported post

The Federal GFSZ is not the same as Wisconsin's. I was incorrect about the 2 rotc boys, but still hold firm on the LEO issue. Reading Wisconsin's GFSZ, unless the officer is acting in an official capacity that officer does not have the right to carry with in the GFSZ.

My example was;

Officer Publicservent is dropping off little Timmy at school before heading off to start his shift. Officer Publicservent is not on duty at this point but is in uniform and armed. Officer Publicservent does not have immunity to Wisconsin's GFSZ law hence is in violation and committing a felony per WI GFSZ.

Now the Federal law may read different, but as Wisconsin has its own and I am bound by it, would not anyone in WI be bound by this law?
 

tekshogun

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Messages
1,052
Location
Greensboro, North Carolina, USA
imported post

bigdaddy1 wrote:
The Federal GFSZ is not the same as Wisconsin's.  I was incorrect about the 2 rotc boys, but still hold firm on the LEO issue.  Reading Wisconsin's GFSZ, unless the officer is acting in an official capacity that officer does not have the right to carry with in the GFSZ.

My example was;

Officer Publicservent  is dropping off little Timmy at school before heading off to start his shift.  Officer Publicservent is not on duty at this point but is in uniform and armed.  Officer Publicservent does not have immunity to Wisconsin's GFSZ law hence is in violation and committing a felony per WI GFSZ.

Now the Federal law may read different, but as Wisconsin has its own and I am bound by it, would not anyone in WI be bound by this law?

While I hear what you're getting at but the Wisconsin law that you quoted only states that it does not give a peace officer permission, it certainly does not restrict:

I am sure, if you dig deeper, a LEO only need permission, and perhaps as condition of employment, especially while uniformed, they may have permission. I am sure a uniformed LEO dropping his or her child off at school, in the vehicle or not, is considered on duty and if not, is still lawfully carrying their firearm.
 

bigdaddy1

Regular Member
Joined
May 7, 2009
Messages
1,320
Location
Southsider der hey
imported post

I posted the law, doesnt say anywhere LEO's are exempt unless acting in aofficial capacity. Law 948.605 in the Wisconsin ledger. Now the Federal deal may read different, but ours clearly states; By a law enforcement officer acting in his or her officialcapacity;

Doest state any exceptions regarding this that I was able to find.
 

bigdaddy1

Regular Member
Joined
May 7, 2009
Messages
1,320
Location
Southsider der hey
imported post

No beef Doug. It may be a mute point anyway, if the impending suit against WI goes as planned the GFSZ will be at the very least amended.



Still looks like the very letter of the law indicates I am correct about LEO and carry.
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
2,381
Location
across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsi
imported post

The complaint is that "Wisconsin's gun Free School Zone Act is unconstitutional on its face and as applied...cover[ing] such a broad area that it practically forecloses a meaningful right to keep and bear arms ..."

http://www.wisconsincarry.org/pdf/GFSZ_Complaint.pdf

I-ANAL and neither are you as I believe. That complaint is wishful thinking and demonstrates no uncommon legal insight. Who ever paid for that either gets the too-good-to-be-true deal or just what he paid for.
 

Pace

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2009
Messages
1,140
Location
Las Vegas, NV
imported post

Ok, lets all agree that most of these laws are unconstitutional.

However it does no good whenever someone asks a question about the law, to continue to reply that. I bet if I search "Master Doug" on this board, I will see 1,000 posts that say "that's unconstitutional."

Some people want to know the law as written, until SCOTUS declares it unconstitutional.
 

okboomer

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2009
Messages
1,164
Location
Oklahoma, USA
imported post

Pace wrote:
Ok, lets all agree that most of these laws are unconstitutional.

However it does no good whenever someone asks a question about the law, to continue to reply that. I bet if I search "Master Doug" on this board, I will see 1,000 posts that say "that's unconstitutional."

Some people want to know the law as written, until SCOTUS declares it unconstitutional.
So you were appointed as a moderator and now have the power to restrict free discussion ON TOPIC of OPEN CARRY in the forum?

Yes, it has been stated that it is unconstitutional, but have you noticed how MANY new members have signed up lately ... this discussion is not for your sole edification, but for the general membership, including the new members who are joining the discussion mid-stream.

It might be time for some to lighten up and consider the whole of the membership.

Of course, I might be wrong, out of line, or just plain being a bitch, but I do see a lot of new members who probably do not have time to read all the past posts (I know I didn't, but did try to follow the whole thread as they were resurrected), and who just might be interested in asking questions about the logic of a specific position and can then be pointed to the relevant thread/discussion.
 
Top