• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

So happy guns are not needed in church!

Wisconsin Carry Inc. - Chairman

Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
Joined
Jan 23, 2010
Messages
1,197
Location
, ,
That'll be intersting to see, particularly if they actually argued the constitutionality. If they just plead guilty to that charge or didn't bother challenging it wouldn't be a good example.

I've been working with a guy outside of Wisconsin who has some legislative support from a U.S. Senator to overturn the Federal GFSZ law. That Senators support is contingent upon there being some political support which at this time, he doesn't believe there is.

These are case citations that my contact has forwarded to me:

Although the Supreme Court has not ruled on the enforceability of the
revised Federal GFSZA; the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has. They
specifically reviewed the changes made by Congress following the SCOTUS
decision in United States v Lopez and they found the amended version to
be constitutional in 2005.

See United States v Dorsey.


In 2007, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
actually upheld a conviction for a gun that a woman had stored in her
home. Her home just happened to be within 1000 feet of a school, and it
happened to be excluded from the "private property" exception because
it was part of a housing project.

See United States v Belen Nieves-Castano
http://www.lexisone.com/lx1/caselaw...=eODa.TZfa.aadi.Ydbf&searchFlag=y&l1loc=FCLOW

Here are links to a few more federal convictions that were upheld under
the current Federal GFSZA. I realize they're not dealing with the
Wisconsin law, but I'm sure they would be useful if you ever get a
chance to challenge the Federal GFSZA.

United States v Danks (1999)

United States v Tait (2000)

United States v Haywood (2003)

United States v Smith (2005)

United States v Weekes (2007)

United States v Benally (2007)

United States v Cruz-Rodriguez (2008)

____________

In addition I have a letter from the BATF that confirms that your NON-RESIDENT CCW PERMIT does not exempt you from the GFSZ unless you are in the state that issued it.

So if you have a UTAH non-resident CCW permit, you are NOT exempted from the GFSZ when you CCW in any other state than Utah.

There is significant pressure NOT to make this information public because it would upset the applecart, but most people don't know they are at risk of being convicted of a felony for the GFSZ statute when they carry with their non-resident permits in states other than that which issued the permit.

Of course I'm sure all CCW permit holders trust the government to use its discretion and not prosecute you for something like that (sarcasm)
 
Last edited:

jpm84092

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2010
Messages
1,066
Location
Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
Good Catch

In addition I have a letter from the BATF that confirms that your NON-RESIDENT CCW PERMIT does not exempt you from the GFSZ unless you are in the state that issued it.

So if you have a UTAH non-resident CCW permit, you are NOT exempted from the GFSZ when you CCW in any other state than Utah.

There is significant pressure NOT to make this information public because it would upset the applecart, but most people don't know they are at risk of being convicted of a felony for the GFSZ statute when they carry with their non-resident permits in states other than that which issued the permit.

Of course I'm sure all CCW permit holders trust the government to use its discretion and not prosecute you for something like that (sarcasm)

Good Catch. However, I suspect that BATF was not being entirely truthful. I may be wrong, but it is my understanding that several factors may affect GFSZ, 1) Whether or not the State you carry in has full written reciprocity, or simply recognizes a Utah permit, 2) Whether the State you are in recognizes the Utah permit and allows CCW inside school zones as a matter of State law. 3) In NH, CO, FL, and MI, whether the Utah permit is held by a resident of Utah as those States honor or have full written reciprocity with Utah, but only if the permit holder is a resident of Utah. 4) Whether you also hold a non-resident permit in that State. Having multiple permits has the potential to affect GFSZ.

Some States allow CCW in school zones, but only for peaceable journey, or picking up one's children after school. By way of example, NV prohibits firearms on school grounds, except with written permission from a school official. CO allows a permit holder to have a handgun on the "real property" of a school provided the handgun remains within a vehicle with the permit holder. If the permit holder leaves the vehicle, then the handgun must be secured in accordance with Federal Transportation of a Firearm statutes. (Since CO only recognizes UT Resident permits, this would never apply to a non-resident UT Permit.) NM prohibits open and concealed carry on school and university grounds, except in a vehicle by a person over 19 years of age. MI allows concealed carry on school grounds, but only in a vehicle, and if stopped at other than a traffic signal, only for the purpose of picking up another person such as a child or legal guardian of a student. (Agin, not applicable to non-resident Utah permit as MI recognizes UT, but only for resident permit holders.)

A good source of open and concealed carry law can be found at:

www.handgunlaw.us

Any permit holder needs to personally check the laws in any State they intend to visit. This is particularly true for non-resident permit holders.

Can you post the letter from BATF.

Jim (UT Resident Permit), NV CFP, FL CFP, PA CFP.
 
Last edited:

Brass Magnet

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
2,818
Location
Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
I've been working with a guy outside of Wisconsin who has some legislative support from a U.S. Senator to overturn the Federal GFSZ law. That Senators support is contingent upon there being some political support which at this time, he doesn't believe there is.

These are case citations that my contact has forwarded to me:

Although the Supreme Court has not ruled on the enforceability of the
revised Federal GFSZA; the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has. They
specifically reviewed the changes made by Congress following the SCOTUS
decision in United States v Lopez and they found the amended version to
be constitutional in 2005.

See United States v Dorsey.


In 2007, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
actually upheld a conviction for a gun that a woman had stored in her
home. Her home just happened to be within 1000 feet of a school, and it
happened to be excluded from the "private property" exception because
it was part of a housing project.

See United States v Belen Nieves-Castano
http://www.lexisone.com/lx1/caselaw...=eODa.TZfa.aadi.Ydbf&searchFlag=y&l1loc=FCLOW

Here are links to a few more federal convictions that were upheld under
the current Federal GFSZA. I realize they're not dealing with the
Wisconsin law, but I'm sure they would be useful if you ever get a
chance to challenge the Federal GFSZA.

United States v Danks (1999)

United States v Tait (2000)

United States v Haywood (2003)

United States v Smith (2005)

United States v Weekes (2007)

United States v Benally (2007)

United States v Cruz-Rodriguez (2008)

____________

In addition I have a letter from the BATF that confirms that your NON-RESIDENT CCW PERMIT does not exempt you from the GFSZ unless you are in the state that issued it.

So if you have a UTAH non-resident CCW permit, you are NOT exempted from the GFSZ when you CCW in any other state than Utah.

There is significant pressure NOT to make this information public because it would upset the applecart, but most people don't know they are at risk of being convicted of a felony for the GFSZ statute when they carry with their non-resident permits in states other than that which issued the permit.

Of course I'm sure all CCW permit holders trust the government to use its discretion and not prosecute you for something like that (sarcasm)

It seems like this needs to get to SCOTUS. In a similar commerce clause decision; as recently as 2000, SCOUTS found that in United States v. Morrison, parts of the violence against women act were unconstitutional. The reenacted statute also fails to address this part of the Lopez opinion.

"The possession of a gun in a local school zone is in no sense an economic activity that might, through repetition elsewhere, substantially affect any sort of interstate commerce." and "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."

The other thing I wonder about without looking through all those cases is which provision of the GFSZA were they charged with and how did that affect the outcome?

Has SCOTUS been asked to hear this again yet and rejected the petition? I'd check myself but have a meeting I've got to prepare for.\

ETA: It would seem to me that you are best off in a district that actually acknowledges precedent, unlile the 9th and 1st. Anyone remember Nordyke v. King? Hey look! An En Blanc festival!
 
Last edited:

Wisconsin Carry Inc. - Chairman

Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
Joined
Jan 23, 2010
Messages
1,197
Location
, ,
ood Catch. However, I suspect that BATF was not being entirely truthful. I may be wrong, but it is my understanding that several factors may affect GFSZ, 1) Whether or not the State you carry in has full written reciprocity, or simply recognizes a Utah permit, 2) Whether the State you are in recognizes the Utah permit and allows CCW inside school zones as a matter of State law. 3) In NH, CO, FL, and MI, whether the Utah permit is held by a resident of Utah as those States honor or have full written reciprocity with Utah, but only if the permit holder is a resident of Utah. 4) Whether you also hold a non-resident permit in that State. Having multiple permits has the potential to affect GFSZ.

According to the letter from the BATF, your understanding is false. According to the letter, you must have a license ISSUED BY THE STATE in which you are carrying:

Having said that, my personal experience has been that government and its agencies are generally MORE interested in telling you that you can't do something, than that you can... So I don't know if the BATF is accurately stating the law or not. I'm just relaying information provided to me.

Having said that, i've observed the actions of the BATF and the US DOJ and I trust neither to protect my rights or "give me the benefit of the doubt".

Can you post the letter from BATF.

Its too large of a file size (only 614K) but I can't attach it to this message and I don't know how to reduce the file size.

I can email it to you.

here is a screen capture:

View attachment 3615View attachment 3616
 

jpm84092

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2010
Messages
1,066
Location
Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
I looked up the Federal GFSZ Act (18 USC 922) and agree that the wording of the Act tends to support your position, but I maintain my position that the wording of Reciprocity Treaties between States may affect how the federal GFSZ Act is enforced in a given State by State Law Enforcement. If the wording of the treaty includes a "full force" clause, I am very doubtful that you would find any jurisdiction in that State willing to split hairs on the Federal GFSZ Act vs their State's laws.

I have studied the laws of many States and have noticed the following:

Wisconsin is the only "no issue" State that allows open carry. GFSZ is rigidly enforced in WI.

Of the nine "may issue" States, only AL recognizes other State's permits (Iowa will go to Shall Issue and honor all permits on 1-1-11). These "may issue" States that do not recognize out of state permits tend to prohibit all carry on school grounds and will enforce the Federal GFSZ Act if another bad deed has been committed (and thus they find out you are carrying). AL has more of a "shall issue" wording though and prohibits possession on the "School Premises" and any school bus, but limits the definition of a school to a public school having K - 12.

Of the remaining 39 States that are "shall issue", many have State Laws that fully or partially provide exceptions to the Federal Act for concealed carry with UT being the most lenient. Unless you did something really nasty, there is no way local LEO are going to give you grief for peaceable journey past a school, even though your trip may take you within the 1000 foot perimeter. So, while technically speaking, the GFSZ Act may be (or may not be) in force for a non-resident permit holder visiting a Shall Issue State, unless there is a predicate bad act, or an actual visit to a school, rather than peaceable journey, no way is it relevant.

Since concealed carry permit holders tend to be very law abiding, this is pretty much a "tempest in a teapot" sort of issue.

Now, to really muddy the GFSZ waters, many States with Castle Doctrine Laws allow concealed or open carry in a personally owned (or lawfully borrowed) vehicle, irregardless of where that vehicle is (unless perhaps if it was somehow inside the sterile area of an airport or inside a Courthouse - or inside the school or at least off the roadways and parking lots - even without a permit. Some Castle Doctrine States require that the weapon be in the open (open carry) if the driver does not have a CFP.

Thus, the waters are murkiest in States that are "shall issue", provide exceptions to the Federal GFSZ Act, have "full force" clauses within their written reciprocity agreements, and are Castle Doctrine States that extend your "Castle" to include your car. Many such States also have a ""no duty to retreat" if you are engaged in an activity that is lawful. (Stand your Ground States; UT, FL, etc.)
 
Last edited:

paul@paul-fisher.com

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
4,049
Location
Chandler, AZ
I looked up the Federal GFSZ Act (18 USC 922) and agree that the wording of the Act tends to support your position, but I maintain my position that the wording of Reciprocity Treaties between States may affect how the federal GFSZ Act is enforced in a given State by State Law Enforcement. If the wording of the treaty includes a "full force" clause, I am very doubtful that you would find any jurisdiction in that State willing to split hairs on the Federal GFSZ Act vs their State's laws.

I have studied the laws of many States and have noticed the following:

Wisconsin is the only "no issue" State that allows open carry. GFSZ is rigidly enforced in WI.

State reciprocity laws have nothing to do with Federal enforcement.

It is the BATFE that enforces the Federal GFSZ. State can refer a violation to them but can't bring Federal charges.

WI does NOT rigidly enforce the WI GFSZ. A case just occurred where a guy was charged TWICE with a state violation, the judge through it out twice and since the DA of that county has mentioned he will no longer enforce it and doesn't think it is enforceable.

Nik will probably jump in here and give additional details but Wisconsin Carry Inc. has an ongoing lawsuit challenging GFSZ in Federal court.
 
Last edited:

jpm84092

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2010
Messages
1,066
Location
Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
One More Thought

Since the Federal GFSZ Act was enacted under the Interstate Commerce Clause of the US Constitution, and since operation of a school, particularly a public school, is not an interstate business, this ACT is ripe for challenge.
 

jpm84092

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2010
Messages
1,066
Location
Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
State reciprocity laws have nothing to do with Federal enforcement.

It is the BATFE that enforces the Federal GFSZ. State can refer a violation to them but can't bring Federal charges.

WI does NOT rigidly enforce the WI GFSZ. A case just occurred where a guy was charged TWICE with a state violation, the judge through it out twice and since the DA of that county has mentioned he will no longer enforce it and doesn't think it is enforceable.

Nik will probably jump in here and give additional details but Wisconsin Carry Inc. has an ongoing lawsuit challenging GFSZ in Federal court.


Glad to hear it.
 

Wisconsin Carry Inc. - Chairman

Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
Joined
Jan 23, 2010
Messages
1,197
Location
, ,
Unless you did something really nasty, there is no way local LEO are going to give you grief for peaceable journey past a school, even though your trip may take you within the 1000 foot perimeter. So, while technically speaking, the GFSZ Act may be (or may not be) in force for a non-resident permit holder visiting a Shall Issue State, unless there is a predicate bad act, or an actual visit to a school, rather than peaceable journey, no way is it relevant.

Well, first, if a person isn't doing anything wrong, and conceal carrying, I think they'll get away with almost anything (including carrying in prohibited places) It would be illegal search and seizure after all to search someone who's not doing anything wrong.

While I'm not an expert, I think somes state require you inform if you have contact with police that you are CCW with permit. So if you get stopped for speeding in a school zone and you inform that you are CC with an out of state permit I totally agree that odds are, so long as your out of state permit is valid and there is reciprocity, the police are unlikely to harass you for the school zone. (or even be aware that according to the Feds, you are violating the GFSZA)

Having said that, its a dangerous game to play to expose yourself to a felony and hope the police don't take issue with you for "some" reason and start thinking of ways to nail you to the wall.

The law should be changed. There are plenty of people who found themselves in great legal peril because they were charged with an often unenforced law that remained able to be enforced "selectively"
 

Wisconsin Carry Inc. - Chairman

Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
Joined
Jan 23, 2010
Messages
1,197
Location
, ,
WI does NOT rigidly enforce the WI GFSZ. A case just occurred where a guy was charged TWICE with a state violation, the judge through it out twice and since the DA of that county has mentioned he will no longer enforce it and doesn't think it is enforceable.

I'd be very careful making this statement. Many municipalities in Wisconsin RIGIDLY attempt to enforce the statute and there are people who did nothing else wrong that were convicted of it.

The Sheboygan case presented some unique facts which the JUDGE threw out, but the DA tried very hard to prosecute.

To my knowledge the Sheboygan Falls DA has not said he won't enforce it in the future, he just went on record in the Journal Sentinel saying he thinks, after the Hubing case, that Wisconsin Carry "has a point" with our lawsuit.

The Jackson County DA has made comments about not enforcing the GFSZ statute.

And my last comment, we know from open-records requests that that was a coordinated conspiracy amongst many police departments/law-enforcement agencies in Wisconsin to use the GFSZ law as the "silver bullet" to arrest otherwise law-abiding citizens for open-carry.
 

smithman

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2007
Messages
718
Location
Waukesha, Wisconsin, USA
LEO's disdain for OC in this state by using the GFSZ law as an oppression tactic is a crock. Its seems LEOs leadership is hell bent on violating the rights of the small number of people who choose to OC. In general, it seems they won't let any infraction go these days (non-gun included), no matter how minor. Break any law and they think they own you.
 
Top