Aristodemus,
This is a good post. Welcome on board.
I just posted on Missouricarry, these two cases, when talking about the FFA's that are popping up across the country. I doubt we will ever see somebody arrested under thisfederal statue. I also wanted to post some links for others to read and give an opinion on this topic.
UNITED STATES v. MORRISON was about the constitutionality of 42 U.S.C. §13981, which provides a federal civil remedy for the victims of gender-motivated violence.
UNITED STATES v. LOPEZ was about the constitutionality of Section 922(q). Now, 922(q)was updated in 1994, before the court issued their opinion in 1995.
see footnote 4.
The twoissues inLopez.
1. Section 922(q) is a criminal statute that by its terms has nothing to do with "commerce" or any sort of economic enterprise, however broadly one might define those terms
2. Second, 922(q) contains no jurisdictional element which would ensure, through case-by-case inquiry, that the firearm possession in question affects interstate commerce.
This section fixed in 1994, but does not fix the other issue #1.
Most importantly, since Heller and soon McDonald, schools will still be off limits, under the second amendment,unless allowed by state law.
The CCW law inMO, will allow you to carry ON school property, as you pointed out and only a MO CCW,gives an exemption to the 1000' rule, as defined in the federal law as school property.
Now the question again, was OC off of school property. You don't need a ccw to OC off school property in Missouri and 922(q) was and still is unconstitutional, according to the standard set out in Lopez. Plus, after McDonald, 2nd kicks in for additional protection off school property.
I think your post on everybody getting a CCW (only a Missouri permit will meet922(q)(2)(ii)) to make sure they are clear of 922(q) is good advice.
I personally don't have a permit.
Nothing in this post is legal advice, just good conversation.