Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: McDonald ruling and GFSZ

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    281

    McDonald ruling and GFSZ

    Since the Supreme Court has ruled the right to bear arms within private residences in McDonald Vs. Chicago, I wonder how this will effect those poor OCer's/LOCer's that want to possess and carry on their own property that have been technically unable to do so because they live within 1000 feet of a school. You think the GFSZ laws will be limited to the school properties only, as they should be?

  2. #2
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748
    You've always been able to carry within your residence, even if you live within 1000' of a school. McDonald doesn't change that. We may be able to make gains if you are outside of your house, which is within 1000' of a school, but still on your property.

    I do believe that the 1000' perimeter around a school will be struck down as unconstitutional. I can see the courts saying that a school is a sensitive location, although I certainly disagree with that based on the number of school shootings that have occurred. Teachers, staff, and parents should be able to defend themselves when on school property just the same as anybody else.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    281
    Bigtoe, that is what I meant. Outside of your house, yet still on your property. Should have been more clear.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Tahoe, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    109
    Private property is still private property - even if it is open to the public. I'm pretty sure this is what Theseus (from calguns) got convicted for.

    To be sure, you need to restrict public access to your property (fence, shrubs, etc.) in order to eliminate the "public access" portion thereby rendering private property w/ no public access (like a home w/ a door or a yard w/ a gate).

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Alaska, USA
    Posts
    18
    public place vs private property is still somewhat grey. The following link has a lot of good information along with some case law that has defined what is public and private in specific circumstances. I think that to be safe, you should at least have a 3.5 foot fence with a gate(open or closed/ locked or unlocked) that provides challenge to public access.
    http://santabarbaralawyer.blogspot.c...lic-place.html

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    KC Metro, Kansas, USA
    Posts
    54
    Quote Originally Posted by eventhorizon000 View Post
    public place vs private property is still somewhat grey. The following link has a lot of good information along with some case law that has defined what is public and private in specific circumstances. I think that to be safe, you should at least have a 3.5 foot fence with a gate(open or closed/ locked or unlocked) that provides challenge to public access.
    http://santabarbaralawyer.blogspot.c...lic-place.html
    Yikes! The federal law doesn't say anything about "private property" only with a fence! Why can't the law be interpreted the way it was written, especially when it is in such clear and plain language? You know, sort of like how the Bill of Rights should mean, uh, everyone has those rights? and on and on. Geesh.

    Federal GFSZ law excerpt:
    (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;

    Sorry to gripe...it's just frustrating when it should be so clear.

  7. #7
    Regular Member 1245A Defender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    north mason county, Washington, USA
    Posts
    4,381

    home made?

    Quote Originally Posted by campfire View Post
    Yikes! The federal law doesn't say anything about "private property" only with a fence! Why can't the law be interpreted the way it was written, especially when it is in such clear and plain language? You know, sort of like how the Bill of Rights should mean, uh, everyone has those rights? and on and on. Geesh.

    Federal GFSZ law excerpt:
    (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;


    Sorry to gripe...it's just frustrating when it should be so clear.
    if a guy manufactured his own gun from raw materials, so that it didnt affect interstate commerce,
    would he then be exempt from the 1000 ft GFSZ?
    EMNofSeattle wrote: Your idea of freedom terrifies me. So you are actually right. I am perfectly happy with what you call tyranny.....

    “If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.”

    Stand up for your Rights,, They have no authority on their own...

    All power is inherent in the people,
    it is their right and duty to be at all times ARMED!

  8. #8
    McX
    Guest
    SCOTUS didn't help much for us in wisconsin. WisconsinCarry is our best bet. maybe you guys should form one? i thought i heard you guys out there lost oc, did arnold sign it?

  9. #9
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748
    Quote Originally Posted by McX View Post
    SCOTUS didn't help much for us in wisconsin. WisconsinCarry is our best bet. maybe you guys should form one? i thought i heard you guys out there lost oc, did arnold sign it?
    It still has to get through a senate committee, and then out of the senate before our governor gets to decide to sign it.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961
    Quote Originally Posted by 1245A Defender View Post
    if a guy manufactured his own gun from raw materials, so that it didnt affect interstate commerce,
    would he then be exempt from the 1000 ft GFSZ?
    I don't think GFSZs are constitutional. We know that they are not for Federal Law (Lopez) but we do not yet have case law for States. I think that MacDonald drew three bright lines to help guide us in determining what is and is not constitutional. One of the three bright lines is schools, not school zones. Therefore I think states have residual police power to prohibit carry at schools, but not in zones outside of the schools.

    IMHO the answer to your question is now being litigated in Montana v. Holder - The Montana Firearms Freedom Act case. If Montana wins then the answer is yes. If Montana loses on the merits then the answer is no. If Montana loses on technicalities ( US is pushing for summary judgement based upon lack of standing) the there is no answer.

    I thought that Kali had her own GFSZ Act, which would make the intrastate v. interstate gun issue irrelevant.

  11. #11
    Regular Member demnogis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Orange County, California, USA
    Posts
    912
    McX, the bill to outlaw openly carrying unloaded handguns in public has not cleared the legislature, hence it has not been signed.

    Unlike other states, there's far too many "fruits" and "nuts" here for a cohesive group to gain muster. Couple that with the fact that the "other" CA firearms community does not like, nor want, unlicensed open carry, loaded or unloaded. They've got more money and lawyers on their side, currently.

    Quote Originally Posted by McX View Post
    SCOTUS didn't help much for us in wisconsin. WisconsinCarry is our best bet. maybe you guys should form one? i thought i heard you guys out there lost oc, did arnold sign it?
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	ocdo_logo.jpg 
Views:	66 
Size:	33.4 KB 
ID:	3130  

Posting Permissions

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