Federal Gun Free School Zones Act

imported post

NavyLT wrote:

insane.kangaroo wrote:

Are you going to try telling me reciprocity by statute isn't licensed by the state?

Click to expand...

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;

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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?

Click to expand...

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.

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?

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

imported post

I believe the law to be unenforcable unless your are committing another criminaloffense.

Research: Jeffrey Weinsier




http://gunowners.org/fs9611.htm

imported post

To all of you who claim you are violating the law by living within 1000' of a school, I would point out:

(B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the possession of a firearm—

(i) on private property not part of school grounds;

Click to expand...

Therefore, as long as you are on your own property, or any private property that you are allowed by the owner to possess a firearm, you are not in violation of the statute, even if you don't have a license pursuant to (ii).

imported post

NavyLT wrote:

mcdonalk wrote:

To all of you who claim you are violating the law by living within 1000' of a school, I would point out:

(B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the possession of a firearm—

(i) on private property not part of school grounds;

Click to expand...

Therefore, as long as you are on your own property, or any private property that you are allowed by the owner to possess a firearm, you are not in violation of the statute, even if you don't have a license pursuant to (ii).

Click to expand...

It's too bad that the Courts don't realize that all this "public" property under the control of a government is actually private property owned by those persons who pay the taxes to fund it.

Click to expand...

Amen. You have to wonder when will we Americans once again understand that it is WE who own the government and everything attached to it, not the other way around.

imported post

Here you have a federal law in conflict with States powers to govern its own property and its political subdivisions. Federal interference to Federal & State RTKBA, State authority to recognize official documents and papers of other states and violation of equal protection under the law. This one is ripe for challenge on many fronts, but if the feds never charge anyone under this statute how will it ever get challenged?

imported post

eye95 wrote:

NavyLT wrote:

insane.kangaroo wrote:

Are you going to try telling me reciprocity by statute isn't licensed by the state?

Click to expand...

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;

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

This may not have the same weight as a court ruling (unless it is backed up by one--I don't know if it is or isn't), but the Kansas Attorney General's concealed carry website's FAQ (http://www.ksag.org/files/Frequently_Asked_Questions_2009_Updates_7-1-09.pdf) provides their view on reciprocity as it relates to the federal GFSZs (redcolor added by me):

· I’ve heard that there is a law requiring me to keep my firearm outside of 1,000 feet of a school…as a licensee of Kansas, is this true?

o Answer: No. The federal law, 18 U.S.C. 922(q), requiring firearms to remain outside of 1,000 feet of a “school zone” has exceptions for individuals who are licensed to carry a firearm by the jurisdiction (state or local) where the school zone sits. Therefore, Kansas licensees have a built in exception to the general rule…licensees from other states, however, do not have this same exception. Note: Kansas licensees, do however, need to be aware of schools that have posted their properties with A.G. approved signage (see next question).

imported post

campfire wrote:

SNIP
· I’ve heard that there is a law requiring me to keep my firearm outside of 1,000 feet of a school…as a licensee of Kansas, is this true?

o Answer: No. The federal law, 18 U.S.C. 922(q), requiring firearms to remain outside of 1,000 feet of a “school zone” has exceptions for individuals who are licensed to carry a firearm by the jurisdiction (state or local) where the school zone sits. Therefore, Kansas licensees have a built in exception to the general rule…licensees from other states, however, do not have this same exception. Note: Kansas licensees, do however, need to be aware of schools that have posted their properties with A.G. approved signage (see next question).

Click to expand...

I have no idea why some people have trouble understanding this:

18U.S.C. § 922q

(2)

(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;

(iii) that is—

(I) not loaded; and

(II) in a locked container, or a locked firearms rack that is on a motor vehicle;

(iv) by an individual for use in a program approved by a school in the school zone;

(v) by an individual in accordance with a contract entered into between a school in the school zone and the individual or an employer of the individual;

(vi) by a law enforcement officer acting in his or her official capacity; or

(vii) that is unloaded and is possessed by an individual while traversing school premises for the purpose of gaining access to public or private lands open to hunting, if the entry on school premises is authorized by school authorities.

imported post

NavyLT wrote:

SpringerXDacp wrote:

I have no idea why some people have trouble understanding this:

Click to expand...

SpringerXDacp,

So, are you saying reciprocity DOES offer an exemption, or does not offer an exemption?

Click to expand...

Does offer. However, per 750.231a, the license/permit to carry a concealed pistol in Michigan must be from your state of residence.

See MCL 750.237a, Subsection (5)(c) for school zones.

(5)(c) An individual licensed by this state or another state to carry a concealed weapon.

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(b2sjeoj20rypbl554f4hcorp))/mileg.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=mcl-750-237a

The "licensed" part under 18U.S.C. § 922q (ii), is not a license/permit to carry a concealed pistol/weapon as I indicated above for (5)(c). If this was not the case, you would not have (iii), (I) & (II).

Residents of Michigan who do not have a CPL are "licensed" by way of obtaining aLicense to Purchasefor a pistol and then having the pistol registered in his or her name.

imported post

NavyLT wrote:

SpringerXDacp wrote:

NavyLT wrote:

SpringerXDacp wrote:

I have no idea why some people have trouble understanding this:

Click to expand...

SpringerXDacp,

So, are you saying reciprocity DOES offer an exemption, or does not offer an exemption?

Click to expand...

Does offer. However, per 750.231a, the license/permit to carry a concealed pistol in Michigan must be from your state of residence.

Click to expand...

I am afraid, according the BATFE who is charged with enforcing such laws, that you have it backwards. Reciprocity does NOT count. The permit/license must be from the same state that the school zone in question is located in. It does not matter what state the person carrying the gun and permit are from, all that matters is that the permit is from the same state the school zone is in, please see the attached BATFE letter or here:

http://handgunlaw.us/documents/batf_school_zone.pdf

Click to expand...

I don't know that BATFE is a proper source for opinions on what the law means. Of course, they are THE source on how they will act.

Specifically, the BATFE completely misinterprets the law. Their opinion says that a license must be ISSUED by the State in which the school is located. However, in the law, the verb is LICENSED. When a State licenses you, it gives you a privilege--not a piece of paper. The piece of paper is simply documentation of the grant of the privilege. By recognizing licenses from other States, the State in which the school is located is giving you that same privilege by means of reciprocity. Therefore, through reciprocity the State is giving you the privilege and has, thereby, licensed you.

Once again, barring black-letter law or a court ruling to the contrary, that is the tact I would take in court. Even if it turns out to be wrong, it would clearly establish that there was no criminal intent.

imported post

I read the letter and according to the BATFE, MCL 750.237a, is not valid due to the Feds overriding Michigan's law?

750.237a in pertinent part:

(5) Subsection (4) does not apply to any of the following:

(a) An individual employed by or contracted by a school if the possession of that weapon is to provide security services for the school.

(b) A peace officer.

(c) An individual licensed by this state or another state to carry a concealed weapon.

imported post

NavyLT wrote:

SpringerXDacp wrote:

NavyLT wrote:

SpringerXDacp wrote:

I have no idea why some people have trouble understanding this:

Click to expand...

SpringerXDacp,

So, are you saying reciprocity DOES offer an exemption, or does not offer an exemption?

Click to expand...

Does offer. However, per 750.231a, the license/permit to carry a concealed pistol in Michigan must be from your state of residence.

Click to expand...

I am afraid, according the BATFE who is charged with enforcing such laws, that you have it backwards. Reciprocity does NOT count. The permit/license must be from the same state that the school zone in question is located in. It does not matter what state the person carrying the gun and permit are from, all that matters is that the permit is from the same state the school zone is in, please see the attached BATFE letter or here:

http://handgunlaw.us/documents/batf_school_zone.pdf

Click to expand...

Thanks for posting this, NavyLT.