Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Is the Gun-Free Zone Act of 1996 Still in Effect

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Old Saybrook, CT
    Posts
    469

    Is the Gun-Free Zone Act of 1996 Still in Effect

    Hi all,
    I know its not open carry in CT related, but there are some very knowledgible people on this forum and I'd like them to weigh in.

    It was my understanding that the Lopez case overturned it.

    Now I see it was reenacted in '96, it appears the 1000 ft rule is still in effect. I thought this was gone.

    Can anyone enlighten me?

    Thanks,

    Don

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Levittown, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    771
    Changes were made and it was re enacted.

    Click Here you can see the changes made

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Norwalk, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    265
    So am I to understand that its against the law to be within 1000' of a school with a gun? As in driving by one etc?

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Cherry Tree (Indiana County), Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    1,155
    Quote Originally Posted by Leverdude View Post
    So am I to understand that its against the law to be within 1000' of a school with a gun? As in driving by one etc?
    Bingo! Leverdude wins a cute little kewpie doll.

    However:
    1. Does Connecticut have a state equivalent thereto?
    2. The "federal" statute does not apply if you possess a license/permit/whatever if it's for the state that the school zone is in (recognized out-of-state licenses/permits/whatevers don't count).
    3. The first federal statute on such was overturned by SCOTUS, but the second apparently has never been challenged.
    4. Apparently nobody can cite a single case of a person being prosecuted in federal court for violation of the GFSZ as a stand-alone charge (although it was possibly done in addition to other charges).

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Norwalk, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    265
    Ok, so since I have a CT permit I'm fine here.
    One would think that if a state permit satisfies the feds it would satisfy our state law that says something to the effect that those licensed to do so can carry on school grounds.

    I'll e-mail you my adress for the kewpie doll. ;o)

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Cherry Tree (Indiana County), Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    1,155
    If you've got a Connecticut permit and the school zone is in Connecticut, then, as far as federal law is concerned, you're good to go.

    Concerning the kewpie doll, my dog ate it this afternoon. Bits and pieces of dead kewpie all over the place. Oh well.

  7. #7
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961
    Quote Originally Posted by Statkowski View Post
    Bingo! Leverdude wins a cute little kewpie doll.

    However:
    1. Does Connecticut have a state equivalent thereto?
    2. The "federal" statute does not apply if you possess a license/permit/whatever if it's for the state that the school zone is in (recognized out-of-state licenses/permits/whatevers don't count).
    3. The first federal statute on such was overturned by SCOTUS, but the second apparently has never been challenged.
    4. Apparently nobody can cite a single case of a person being prosecuted in federal court for violation of the GFSZ as a stand-alone charge (although it was possibly done in addition to other charges).
    Of course not. It will never withstand a federal review at any level. The original was overturned because carry within 1000 feet of a school had nothing to do with interstate commerce. Congress reenacted the exact same lagislation with a commerce clause saying that danger to school by guns had an effect upon interstate commerce. It would be overturned very quickly if a charge was brought.

    The real purpose of the law is to give gun grabbing states federal "cover" to enact state laws with vague reference to federal gun laws. This is a great catch 22. Can't challenge the federal law in state court. Bastages, all of them gun grabbers.
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

Posting Permissions

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