EXTREMEOPS1
Campaign Veteran
Guns now available in church
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/07/bobby-jindal-signs-guns-i_n_638047.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/07/bobby-jindal-signs-guns-i_n_638047.html
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.
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)
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)
"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."
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.
Can you post the letter from BATF.
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.
this ACT is ripe for challenge.
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.
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.