View Poll Results: Would you go out of your way to avoid violating 18 USC 922(q)?

Voters
39. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    10 25.64%
  • No

    29 74.36%
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 35

Thread: Federal Gun Free School Zones Act

  1. #1
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Reno, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,713

    Post imported post

    Just wanted to do a poll, no need to actually answer the question in a post.

    The Federal Gun Free School Zones Act was found unconstitutional in U.S. vs. Lopez as an unconstitutional extension of the interstate commerce clause. Immediately afterward, congress modified it to say that any gun in a school zone affects commerce or moved in commerce and anyone with a gun affecting commerce or that moved in commerce in a school zone is guilty. In my opinion, the law is unconstitutional for the same reason as the original.

    My question is, how many of us actually take the federal law to be binding on us? Assuming no local laws applied, and not qualifying for an exception, would you go out of your way to avoid being in violation of 18 USC 922(Q) which prohibits guns within 1000 feet of a school?

    Conviction under the law would be a federal felony punishable by up to 5 years in prison.

  2. #2
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849

    Post imported post

    Felid`Maximus wrote:
    Just wanted to do a poll, no need to actually answer the question in a post.

    The Federal Gun Free School Zones Act was found unconstitutional in U.S. vs. Lopez as an unconstitutional extension of the interstate commerce clause. Immediately afterward, congress modified it to say that any gun in a school zone affects commerce or moved in commerce and anyone with a gun affecting commerce or that moved in commerce in a school zone is guilty. In my opinion, the law is unconstitutional for the same reason as the original.

    My question is, how many of us actually take the federal law to be binding on us? Assuming no local laws applied, and not qualifying for an exception, would you go out of your way to avoid being in violation of 18 USC 922(Q) which prohibits guns within 1000 feet of a school?

    Conviction under the law would be a federal felony punishable by up to 5 years in prison.
    This does not affect those who have been issued a "license" within the subject state. The wording does not require one to have the "license" on their person but merely to have been issued such a license.

    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  3. #3
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Reno, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,713

    Post imported post

    The poll is assuming you did not qualify for an exception such as being issued a license to possess a firearm within 1000 feet of a school or being a peace officer or being on private property etc.

    But on the subject of licenses...
    (A) It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.
    (B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the possession of a firearm—

    ...

    (ii) if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located or a political subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or political subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license;
    It is a subject unrelated to the poll, but it isn't very clear about what type of license it is referring to. It is a license "to do so."

    Does it refer to a license to possess a firearm specifically in a school zone? How many states issue licenses that specifically allow people to, (as Congress puts it,) possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce in a school zone? [Probably the only states that would are states that have their own school zone gun ban, like California]

    Does it refer to a general license to possess a firearm? Would a license to own a firearm qualify in states where one needs a gun license just to own one? Would a license count if it only licensed one to conceal and the laws of the state allow you to possess and even carry openly without such a license?

  4. #4
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849

    Post imported post

    Here is the pertinent part of the code.

    (A) It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.

    (B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the possession of a firearm— (i) on private property not part of school grounds; (ii) if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located or a political subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or political subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license;


    The phraseology in question is "if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located".No mention of a CHP, which is a permit and not a license, is made which would lead one to believe that this part of the code requires a license to have been issued by the state. Of course, Virginia has no such license to possess a firearm and as such, the default would become the Virginia Constitution. This means that open carry is perfectly fine since that is the default, or normal, mode of carrying a sidearm. And I would bet that any attorney in Virginia who is worth his salt would easily be able to argue that a Virginia CHP would be qualification for concealed carry within these confines.

    Lastly, U.S. Code 18,922 makes no mention of a 1000' radius, nor does it define a school zone in any such manner. I'm sure many gun owning Virginians live well within any sort of 1000' radius of a primary or secondary school. And I bet a fair amount of them carry firearms to and from their homes for all manner of reasons. This silly code is useless and doesn't work here in Virginia anyway.

    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  5. #5
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Reno, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,713

    Post imported post

    The school zone is defined as 1000 feet from a school by U.S. Code 18,921.

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/se...000-.html#a_25
    (25) The term “school zone” means—
    (A) in, or on the grounds of, a public, parochial or private school; or
    (B) within a distance of 1,000 feet from the grounds of a public, parochial or private school.

    (26) The term “school” means a school which provides elementary or secondary education, as determined under State law.

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    1,128

    Post imported post

    There is no way to get to my house without going through a School Zone except to walk through the woods. That means that--as far as I am concerned--the GFSZ law violates my Heller right to keep a firearm in my house as well as being beyond the powers of Congress under Article I.

    As far as I know, since Lopez, the feds have done absolutely nothing to enforce the GFSZ law. Every time I transport a firearm to or fromfrom my house, I bet that this policy is not going to change.

    But if it ever does, I'm ready!



  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,666

    Post imported post

    SouthernBoy wrote:
    Here is the pertinent part of the code.

    (A) It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.

    (B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the possession of a firearm— (i) on private property not part of school grounds; (ii) if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located or a political subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or political subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license;


    The phraseology in question is "if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located".No mention of a CHP, which is a permit and not a license, is made which would lead one to believe that this part of the code requires a license to have been issued by the state. Of course, Virginia has no such license to possess a firearm and as such, the default would become the Virginia Constitution. This means that open carry is perfectly fine since that is the default, or normal, mode of carrying a sidearm. And I would bet that any attorney in Virginia who is worth his salt would easily be able to argue that a Virginia CHP would be qualification for concealed carry within these confines.

    Lastly, U.S. Code 18,922 makes no mention of a 1000' radius, nor does it define a school zone in any such manner. I'm sure many gun owning Virginians live well within any sort of 1000' radius of a primary or secondary school. And I bet a fair amount of them carry firearms to and from their homes for all manner of reasons. This silly code is useless and doesn't work here in Virginia anyway.

    In Washington our 'permit' was changed to a 'Concealed Pistol License' or CPL. Thus exempt from the US Code. We must follow state law.

    Live Free or Die!

  8. #8
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849

    Post imported post

    gogodawgs wrote:
    SouthernBoy wrote:
    Here is the pertinent part of the code.

    (A) It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.

    (B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the possession of a firearm— (i) on private property not part of school grounds; (ii) if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located or a political subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or political subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license;


    The phraseology in question is "if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located".No mention of a CHP, which is a permit and not a license, is made which would lead one to believe that this part of the code requires a license to have been issued by the state. Of course, Virginia has no such license to possess a firearm and as such, the default would become the Virginia Constitution. This means that open carry is perfectly fine since that is the default, or normal, mode of carrying a sidearm. And I would bet that any attorney in Virginia who is worth his salt would easily be able to argue that a Virginia CHP would be qualification for concealed carry within these confines.

    Lastly, U.S. Code 18,922 makes no mention of a 1000' radius, nor does it define a school zone in any such manner. I'm sure many gun owning Virginians live well within any sort of 1000' radius of a primary or secondary school. And I bet a fair amount of them carry firearms to and from their homes for all manner of reasons. This silly code is useless and doesn't work here in Virginia anyway.

    In Washington our 'permit' was changed to a 'Concealed Pistol License' or CPL. Thus exempt from the US Code. We must follow state law.
    Yeah, ours in Virginia is a CHP.

    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  9. #9
    Regular Member david.ross's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA, USA
    Posts
    1,241

    Post imported post

    SouthernBoy wrote:
    Lastly, U.S. Code 18,922 makes no mention of a 1000' radius, nor does it define a school zone in any such manner. I'm sure many gun owning Virginians live well within any sort of 1000' radius of a primary or secondary school. And I bet a fair amount of them carry firearms to and from their homes for all manner of reasons. This silly code is useless and doesn't work here in Virginia anyway.
    You must be affecting or engaging in interstate commerce, not just in 1000'.

    Please read the UPDATED(enacted in 96') code.
    Gays are prominent members of firearm rights, we do more via the courts, don't like it? Leave.
    Religious bigots against same sex marriage are not different than white supremacists.
    I expel anti-gay people off my teams. Tolerance is key to team cohesion and team building.

  10. #10
    Regular Member david.ross's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA, USA
    Posts
    1,241

    Post imported post

    Felid`Maximus wrote:
    The school zone is defined as 1000 feet from a school by U.S. Code 18,921.

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/se...000-.html#a_25
    (25) The term “school zone” means—
    (A) in, or on the grounds of, a public, parochial or private school; or
    (B) within a distance of 1,000 feet from the grounds of a public, parochial or private school.

    (26) The term “school” means a school which provides elementary or secondary education, as determined under State law.
    You must be affecting or engaging in interstate commerce, not just in 1000'.

    Please read the UPDATED(enacted in 96') code.
    Gays are prominent members of firearm rights, we do more via the courts, don't like it? Leave.
    Religious bigots against same sex marriage are not different than white supremacists.
    I expel anti-gay people off my teams. Tolerance is key to team cohesion and team building.

  11. #11
    Regular Member david.ross's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA, USA
    Posts
    1,241

    Post imported post

    The Donkey wrote:
    There is no way to get to my house without going through a School Zone except to walk through the woods. That means that--as far as I am concerned--the GFSZ law violates my Heller right to keep a firearm in my house as well as being beyond the powers of Congress under Article I.

    As far as I know, since Lopez, the feds have done absolutely nothing to enforce the GFSZ law. Every time I transport a firearm to or fromfrom my house, I bet that this policy is not going to change.

    But if it ever does, I'm ready!

    You must be affecting or engaging in interstate commerce, not just in 1000'.

    Please read the UPDATED(enacted in 96') code.
    Gays are prominent members of firearm rights, we do more via the courts, don't like it? Leave.
    Religious bigots against same sex marriage are not different than white supremacists.
    I expel anti-gay people off my teams. Tolerance is key to team cohesion and team building.

  12. #12
    Regular Member david.ross's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA, USA
    Posts
    1,241

    Post imported post

    Every time GFSZ act is brought up, it makes me want to vomit. People, even gun owners, believe the GFSZ act was not presented to the court, not publicly ridiculed, not reenacted in 96' with a different clause.

    People, come on, read the latest code and don't be stuck 14 years in the past.
    Gays are prominent members of firearm rights, we do more via the courts, don't like it? Leave.
    Religious bigots against same sex marriage are not different than white supremacists.
    I expel anti-gay people off my teams. Tolerance is key to team cohesion and team building.

  13. #13
    Regular Member david.ross's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA, USA
    Posts
    1,241

    Post imported post

    NavyLT wrote:

    The statute is referring to the FIREARM moving inor affecting commerce, not the person carrying it,and the word is HAS as in past tense, not present tense.
    okay, my mistake for using the wrong subject, it is 'firearm'.

    Still means people who have a firearm are OK if they're transporting, carrying, or otherwise possessing the firearm within 1000 feet long as they're not moving in or affecting commerce.

    The Lopez case was completely about the federal government attempting to prohibit with authority they don't have available.

    You can talk with me about 'moving in or affecting commerce', there are cases which went past SCOTUS in regards to farmers and restrictions the federal government were placing on them, where the ruling tilted in favor of the government.

    Just to make it VERY clear, you can affect interstate commerce by traveling interstate, but the firearm must be enclosed for transport in a container.

    I still have yet to hear anyone charged with the GFSZ act of 96'.
    Gays are prominent members of firearm rights, we do more via the courts, don't like it? Leave.
    Religious bigots against same sex marriage are not different than white supremacists.
    I expel anti-gay people off my teams. Tolerance is key to team cohesion and team building.

  14. #14
    Regular Member david.ross's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA, USA
    Posts
    1,241

    Post imported post

    I'm talking about properly transporting a firearm interstate while taking in the GFSZ act of 96'.

    The section regarding transport of a firearm is very clear on how to handle the firearm.

    Affecting interstate transportation when the firearm is not enclosed like specified will be breaking the law. Unless of course you want to challenge said GFSZ act after gun owners win in the latest SCOTUS case.
    Gays are prominent members of firearm rights, we do more via the courts, don't like it? Leave.
    Religious bigots against same sex marriage are not different than white supremacists.
    I expel anti-gay people off my teams. Tolerance is key to team cohesion and team building.

  15. #15
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849

    Post imported post

    Felid`Maximus wrote:
    The school zone is defined as 1000 feet from a school by U.S. Code 18,921.

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/se...000-.html#a_25
    (25) The term “school zone” means—
    (A) in, or on the grounds of, a public, parochial or private school; or
    (B) within a distance of 1,000 feet from the grounds of a public, parochial or private school.

    (26) The term “school” means a school which provides elementary or secondary education, as determined under State law.
    Thank you. I should have gone backwards by one-thousandth to see that code.

    But it still does not affect us here in Virginia. However, to be really on the safe side, having a CHP seals the deal.

    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  16. #16
    Regular Member david.ross's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA, USA
    Posts
    1,241

    Post imported post

    NavyLT wrote:
    http://www.fau.edu/~tunick/courses/conlaw/gunlaw.html
    Following is information on Congress's revision of the Gun-free School Zones Act that was struck down in U.S. v. Lopez.

    From Congressional Record S7920-7921

    THE GUN-FREE SCHOOL ZONES ACT OF 1995
    Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, with my colleagues Senators Specter, Simon, Feinstein, Bradley, Lautenberg, Chafee, and Kerrey, we rise today to introduce the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1995. This common-sense measure, which replaces the original Gun Free School Zones Act, is needed to send a strong message to teachers, State law enforcement officers and State prosecutors: the Federal Government stands behind you and will support you in getting guns out of our school grounds.

    Let me begin by reminding you that the original version of this bill passed by unanimous consent in 1990. The measure was kept in conference where any one member's objection could have struck the bill. That conference was attended by the senior members of the Judiciary Committee, among them Senators Biden, Hatch, Thurmond, Simpson, and Kennedy. It was signed into law by then-President Bush. It is a measure that was supported by all of us. And we should continue to support it.

    But in April, a sharply divided Supreme Court struck down the original Gun-Free School Zones Act in the case of United States versus Lopez. It did so on the grounds that the commerce clause of the Constitution did not support the act. As long as we can address the Supreme Court's concerns, there is no reason why the decision should alter the support this bill had in 1990.

    The original act made it a Federal crime to knowingly bring a gun within 1,000 feet of a school or to fire a gun in these zones, with carefully crafted exceptions. The Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1995 does exactly what the old act did. However, it adds a requirement that the prosecutor prove as part of each prosecution that the gun moved in or affected interstate or foreign commerce.

    That is the only change to the legislative language of the original bill. The only change. We place only a minor burden on prosecutors while simply and plainly assuring the constitutionality of the act.

    Now, please tell me, Mr. Kangaroo, where the autor of the bill's explanation says anything at all about requiring a prosecutor to prove that the PERSON carrying the gun was engaging in interstate commerce at the time of the offense? The author of the bill, SenatorHerb Kohl, himself, states that only the GUN had to, at one time or another, movED - PAST TENSE - in or affected interstate commerce.

    I suppose Senator Kohl was mistaken as well...
    I'd love to see the "moved in" part go to court. I could see/understand a gun affecting interstate commerce. I'd take it to court myself if an attorney wanted to take me to court over carrying a firearm in a school zone even if I didn't have a permit for the state.

    I somehow doubt the "moved in" would stand up in court. This for some reasons reminds me of the recent case ACLU helping someone take to the higher courts, which isn't completed, a case regarding the wear of ACUs by civilians. I hope they don't throw in the "they moved in interstate commerce", then all gun owners will be getting charged and hassled.
    Gays are prominent members of firearm rights, we do more via the courts, don't like it? Leave.
    Religious bigots against same sex marriage are not different than white supremacists.
    I expel anti-gay people off my teams. Tolerance is key to team cohesion and team building.

  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Post imported post

    I agree that the "moved in" clause needs to be addressed (and, I hope, struck down). However, NavyLT has still clearly shown your interpretation of the law to be completely wrong.

    As it stands now, almost every gun can easily be shown to have movED in interstate commerce, so the new law is effectively the same as the old law.

    However, that weakest link to interstate commerce, if allowed to stand, could be used by the feds to seize any authority they choose.

  18. #18
    Regular Member david.ross's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA, USA
    Posts
    1,241

    Post imported post

    eye95 wrote:
    However, that weakest link to interstate commerce, if allowed to stand, could be used by the feds to seize any authority they choose.
    Hmm okay. Well I'll accept I was incorrect. I'm licensed so I've never concerned myself since I don't go anywhere my license is not recip.

    What will be interesting is a case in SCOTUS in regards to firearms made in the state, since apparently the BATFE has issues and claims such firearms still fall under federal jurisdiction.

    I agree with you, if allowed the federal government would theoretically basically force any issue. I'm interested in to why they haven't tried the GFSZ Act method instead of forcing bills down states' throats threatening to cut funding unless states make it unlawful to ban texting while driving?

    similar could be passed if valid, "No electronic device which movED in interstate commerce may be used by the driver of a moving vehicle"
    Gays are prominent members of firearm rights, we do more via the courts, don't like it? Leave.
    Religious bigots against same sex marriage are not different than white supremacists.
    I expel anti-gay people off my teams. Tolerance is key to team cohesion and team building.

  19. #19
    Regular Member david.ross's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA, USA
    Posts
    1,241

    Post imported post

    Are you going to try telling me reciprocity by statute isn't licensed by the state?
    Gays are prominent members of firearm rights, we do more via the courts, don't like it? Leave.
    Religious bigots against same sex marriage are not different than white supremacists.
    I expel anti-gay people off my teams. Tolerance is key to team cohesion and team building.

  20. #20
    Regular Member david.ross's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA, USA
    Posts
    1,241

    Post imported post

    Hmm, you bring food for though. Not all states are the same and it's left to interpretation what is licensed by the state. Firearms permits/ccw license agreements are usually created by the state AGs, one could say those people are licensed by the state. This is left open to interpretation to each state since many are different from each other.

    I once called a sheriff at a court house asking about the firearms lock boxes asking about the statute and the current procedure since the lock boxes were located in the court house while the state stated firearms are to be stored before(or so) entering the court house. The sheriff's reply was in summary, "If you want to go by statute, the steps are the entrance to the court house." I was clued in to how police see discretion in PA.
    Gays are prominent members of firearm rights, we do more via the courts, don't like it? Leave.
    Religious bigots against same sex marriage are not different than white supremacists.
    I expel anti-gay people off my teams. Tolerance is key to team cohesion and team building.

  21. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Post imported post

    NavyLT wrote:
    insane.kangaroo wrote:
    Are you going to try telling me reciprocity by statute isn't licensed by the state?
    Yep. Let's say you have a Washington permit valid in Idaho (I don't know if Washington's is valid in Idaho or not...). What actions did Idaho do to issue you a license? Did they take money from you? No. Did they do a background check on you? No. Did they verify any of your information? No. Are they extending you a privilige which to do in Idaho what Washington has licensed you to do? Yes. Idaho is not the licensing authority, Washington is. You were LICENSED by Washington, Idaho had NO PART in that licensing process. They are simply extending to you a privilige that another state has licensed you to do.



    Notice the exact wording of the exception:
    (ii) if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located or a political subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or political subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license;
    It says licensed BY the state, it does NOT say licensed IN the state. Licensed BY means that state has taken some action to issue you that license. If it said licensed IN that state, then reciprocity could be argued to apply.
    __________________________________________________ ____________
    [The above is part of the quote. I don't know why the software refuses to put it in the quote box.]

    That would be an interesting argument in court. I'd argue that reciprocity constitutes being licensed by the reciprocating State. Until a court rules on it, none of us know.

    However, the license from a reciprocating State should still be a defense. Barring black-letter law specifically answering the question, one could argue that he was trying to comply with the law which was unclear. That should eliminate requisite criminal intent.

  22. #22
    Regular Member younggun20's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Ogden, Utah, USA
    Posts
    276

    Post imported post

    I do my best to avoid what I can but seriously 1000' from any school charter school. and from what i understand even say a school sponsored field trip to the zoo, now you have to be 1000' from the zoo. It id un avoidable.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    American Fork, Utah, USA
    Posts
    22

    Post imported post

    Felid`Maximus wrote:
    would you go out of your way to avoid being in violation of 18 USC 922(Q) which prohibits guns within 1000 feet of a school?
    Seeing as how my house is located within 1000 feet of the local high school, I violate that law constantly.

    Trust me, I'm not losing much sleep over it.

  24. #24
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849

    Post imported post

    stewie-Y wrote:
    Felid`Maximus wrote:
    would you go out of your way to avoid being in violation of 18 USC 922(Q) which prohibits guns within 1000 feet of a school?
    Seeing as how my house is located within 1000 feet of the local high school, I violate that law constantly.

    Trust me, I'm not losing much sleep over it.
    I am also within 1000' feet of a school, but this doesn't affect me because of 18,922's clause regarding being licensed by the state (blah, blah, blah). I have carried many times past schools of all types and never considered there would be any sort of problem.

    In the extreme case, consider this foolishness. Say you do not have a "license" and you are carrying a few guns in your vehicle to a shooting range. You drive by a school along the way. Technically you would be in violation of this nonsense but I would bet you are not about to be checked and arrested. Now let's take it a little further.

    You drive by a school and have to stop at a crossing. One of the school kids passes close by your car, sees a shotgun on the passenger side of your small pickup, and yells, "gun". Are you going to get arrested? Maybe, maybe not. But the chances just went up considerably.


    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    KC Metro, Kansas, USA
    Posts
    54

    Post imported post

    I've read a few threads and internet informationon the topic of the Federal GFSZs. It's my understanding that they modeled the law on the Drug Free School Zones. I'm notreally familiar with the DFSZ law, but I would assume thatit makes possession of illegal drugs within 1000' feet of a school a separate federal crime. That's fine with me I guess...the drugs are already illegal and adding a charge to someone already breaking the law is just extra punishment for being a criminal in the first place.

    But inmany/most places possessing/carrying firearms is not by itself illegal, andGFSZ lawsmake a federal crime of it. Therefore, it's not the same kind of situation as the Drug Free issue in my view.

    Is there anyreadily feasible wayto have the GSFZ law repealed entirely, challenged in courts and struck down, limited to school property itself (and not extending 1000' away), or modified so that it only applies if you arecommiting a crimeunder fed/state/local law while possessing a firearmin that school zone?

    ... That way a law-abiding citizentrying to follow the law(in an abundance of caution, despite whether the law could actually hold up or not)doesn't have to worry about accidental OC in a school zone.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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