Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 28

Thread: Real data about the 1000' foot school zone laws...

  1. #1
    Regular Member ooghost1oo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    262

    Real data about the 1000' foot school zone laws...

    I came across some interesting information about the 1000' school zone anti-gun laws in the Arizona forum (reading about their new Constitutional Carry) that I never saw here. I know that we, in Colorado, have discussed (amid other discussions) that the 1000' law is something enforced only Federally, and that the cops and sheriffs here don't really enforce it, but here (below) is some more information gleaned from other sources.

    Does anyone have any more information about this, or in ways as it pertains to Colorado? Any test cases?

    (From Arizona Forum)

    ---

    As far as AZ GFSZ law, just stay off of K-12 grounds. The federal law is not enforced by any state or local agency, and BATF or FBI is not out looking for violators either. It is a moot point here in AZ.

    As a matter of fact, since the federal law was re-vamped in 1996, I'm not aware of anyone actually being charge with it. If anyone has been charged, I would be surprised if it wasn't without first being charged with a violation of state law (like California's GFSZ law). Does anyone have any specific info on this aspect?

    ---

    ...
    And as far as the school zone crap...that was overturned. I'll try to find the specific case law but it's not a "law" anymore, at least not an enforceable one. If it were, the Fed would have sued AZ, MO (just to name a few) who have laws permitting you to bring a gun onto school grounds so long as x, y, and z...

    ---

    The Gun Free School Zones Act of 1990 was struck down in 1995 by the US Supreme Court ruling on US v. Lopez on the grounds that congress had overstepped its authority under the commerce clause of the constitution.

    Congress immediately responded by passing the Gun Free School Zones Act of 1995, which added some vague language about how guns in schools affect interstate commerce. It was a pretty obvious evasion, but the 1995 act hasn't been challenged yet and remains as law. If anyone is ever prosecuted under it (which I'm pretty sure has yet to happen), I'm inclined to think that the Supreme Court won't have very much humor regarding Congress' contempt for their previous ruling.

    ---

    LEGAL ISSUES RELATING TO THE USE OF DEADLY FORCE
    By Michael P. Anthony
    (With updated 2010 legislation, D.C. v. Heller & McDonald v. Chicago notes)
    (Version 14.0 - July, 2010)

    There are two parts to the new "Gun Free School Zones Act." The first part makes it unlawful to "knowingly 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." 18 U.S.C. 922(q). There are seven exceptions to this prohibition:

    (...)

    2. if the individual is licensed by the State in which the school zone is located to carry a firearm, and the licensing
    requirements include verification that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license;

    (...)

    For the Arizona resident, the "Gun Free School Zones Act" restricts rights under state law. Arizona law permits carrying a firearm (concealed or openly) on your person or in an automobile, but federal law now prohibits doing so in a federal "school zone," except as specifically permitted under the federal statute. Arizona CCW permittees appear to qualify under the federal law to carry their guns in the federal school zones. However, a CCW permittee is not authorized to discharge or attempt to discharge a gun in a federal school zone, even though doing so might be justifiable under state law and viewed as a moral obligation under certain circumstances (e.g., to save innocent school children from an armed attacker.

    As explained earlier in this treatise, under Arizona law, a person may use a firearm to defend against imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury or to stop specified criminal acts (e.g., rape, robbery, kidnapping, etc.). However, it is illegal under the "Gun Free School Zones Act" to knowingly or recklessly discharge or attempt to discharge a gun ina federal school zone.

    A violation of the "Gun Free School Zones Act" carries a federal penalty of fine and imprisonment for up to five years. 18 U.S.C. 924(a)(4). Since self-defense and other Arizona "justification" laws do not apply to the "Gun Free School Zones Act," a person who knowingly discharges a firearm in a federal school zone in self-defense or to save children from an armed madman would be subject to prosecution by federal authorities and sentencing up to five years in federal prison. No doubt the members of congress who voted for the "Gun Free School Zones Act" would assert that no federal prosecutor would pursue such a case. But if no federal prosecutor should pursue such a case, why does the "Gun Free School Zones Act" make no exceptions for those who use a firearm legally under state law? The reality is that people have been prosecuted and imprisoned in the United States for unlawfully discharging a firearm while lawfully acting in justified self-defense. Therefore, one should be aware that, if one fires a gun within a federal gun free school zone to justifiably defend oneself or someone else, one risks federal criminal prosecution.

    ---

    Additional Resources:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun-Fre...es_Act_of_1990

    Here's the over-turning of that 1990 law:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Lopez

  2. #2
    Lone Star Veteran Ian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    712
    Meh, I have a CHP so I don't really care.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Kingfish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Atlanta, Georgia, USA
    Posts
    1,276
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian View Post
    Meh, I have a CHP so I don't really care.
    Oh, very nice. Awesome contribution to the discussion and to the RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS...As apposed to rolling over to a state granted privilege.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855
    Quote Originally Posted by ooghost1oo View Post
    I came across some interesting information about the 1000' school zone anti-gun laws in the Arizona forum (reading about their new Constitutional Carry) that I never saw here. I know that we, in Colorado, have discussed (amid other discussions) that the 1000' law is something enforced only Federally, and that the cops and sheriffs here don't really enforce it, but here (below) is some more information gleaned from other sources.

    Does anyone have any more information about this, or in ways as it pertains to Colorado? Any test cases?

    (From Arizona Forum)

    ---

    As far as AZ GFSZ law, just stay off of K-12 grounds. The federal law is not enforced by any state or local agency, and BATF or FBI is not out looking for violators either. It is a moot point here in AZ.

    As a matter of fact, since the federal law was re-vamped in 1996, I'm not aware of anyone actually being charge with it. If anyone has been charged, I would be surprised if it wasn't without first being charged with a violation of state law (like California's GFSZ law). Does anyone have any specific info on this aspect?

    ---

    ...
    And as far as the school zone crap...that was overturned. I'll try to find the specific case law but it's not a "law" anymore, at least not an enforceable one. If it were, the Fed would have sued AZ, MO (just to name a few) who have laws permitting you to bring a gun onto school grounds so long as x, y, and z...

    ---

    The Gun Free School Zones Act of 1990 was struck down in 1995 by the US Supreme Court ruling on US v. Lopez on the grounds that congress had overstepped its authority under the commerce clause of the constitution.

    Congress immediately responded by passing the Gun Free School Zones Act of 1995, which added some vague language about how guns in schools affect interstate commerce. It was a pretty obvious evasion, but the 1995 act hasn't been challenged yet and remains as law. If anyone is ever prosecuted under it (which I'm pretty sure has yet to happen), I'm inclined to think that the Supreme Court won't have very much humor regarding Congress' contempt for their previous ruling.

    ---

    LEGAL ISSUES RELATING TO THE USE OF DEADLY FORCE
    By Michael P. Anthony
    (With updated 2010 legislation, D.C. v. Heller & McDonald v. Chicago notes)
    (Version 14.0 - July, 2010)

    There are two parts to the new "Gun Free School Zones Act." The first part makes it unlawful to "knowingly 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." 18 U.S.C. 922(q). There are seven exceptions to this prohibition:

    (...)

    2. if the individual is licensed by the State in which the school zone is located to carry a firearm, and the licensing
    requirements include verification that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license;

    (...)

    For the Arizona resident, the "Gun Free School Zones Act" restricts rights under state law. Arizona law permits carrying a firearm (concealed or openly) on your person or in an automobile, but federal law now prohibits doing so in a federal "school zone," except as specifically permitted under the federal statute. Arizona CCW permittees appear to qualify under the federal law to carry their guns in the federal school zones. However, a CCW permittee is not authorized to discharge or attempt to discharge a gun in a federal school zone, even though doing so might be justifiable under state law and viewed as a moral obligation under certain circumstances (e.g., to save innocent school children from an armed attacker.

    As explained earlier in this treatise, under Arizona law, a person may use a firearm to defend against imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury or to stop specified criminal acts (e.g., rape, robbery, kidnapping, etc.). However, it is illegal under the "Gun Free School Zones Act" to knowingly or recklessly discharge or attempt to discharge a gun ina federal school zone.

    A violation of the "Gun Free School Zones Act" carries a federal penalty of fine and imprisonment for up to five years. 18 U.S.C. 924(a)(4). Since self-defense and other Arizona "justification" laws do not apply to the "Gun Free School Zones Act," a person who knowingly discharges a firearm in a federal school zone in self-defense or to save children from an armed madman would be subject to prosecution by federal authorities and sentencing up to five years in federal prison. No doubt the members of congress who voted for the "Gun Free School Zones Act" would assert that no federal prosecutor would pursue such a case. But if no federal prosecutor should pursue such a case, why does the "Gun Free School Zones Act" make no exceptions for those who use a firearm legally under state law? The reality is that people have been prosecuted and imprisoned in the United States for unlawfully discharging a firearm while lawfully acting in justified self-defense. Therefore, one should be aware that, if one fires a gun within a federal gun free school zone to justifiably defend oneself or someone else, one risks federal criminal prosecution.

    ---

    Additional Resources:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun-Fre...es_Act_of_1990

    Here's the over-turning of that 1990 law:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Lopez
    Interesting. Basically a moot point in CO, but shows how idiotic Congress is when not considering downstream consequences.

  5. #5
    Lone Star Veteran Ian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    712
    Quote Originally Posted by Kingfish View Post
    Oh, very nice. Awesome contribution to the discussion and to the RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS...As apposed to rolling over to a state granted privilege.
    Don't preach to me about 2A. I'm the reason there was an Open Carry movement in Texas last year because of my petition (http://www.petitiononline.com/texasoc/petition.html) and we almost got a bill introduced. I printed the whole thing out and hauled it around the capital for several days. Those binders are full of nothing but signatures by the way.


    However, when dealing with the legislature you might as well pound your face into a wall.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	iPhone 222.jpg 
Views:	193 
Size:	96.3 KB 
ID:	3627   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	iPhone 201.jpg 
Views:	186 
Size:	97.1 KB 
ID:	3628  
    Last edited by Ian; 08-18-2010 at 07:59 PM.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Kingfish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Atlanta, Georgia, USA
    Posts
    1,276
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian View Post
    Don't preach to me about 2A.
    Um...Then why don't you support those who don't have a government permission slip? Whether by choice or by government rule. Saying you don't care about the OP's message because you have yours is a bit condescending (at least that is the way it comes across.)


    With all due respect one person is not responsible for a movement. Saying you took a lead role in the battle for OC would be quite appropriate though.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Lakewood, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    1,250
    Quote Originally Posted by Kingfish View Post
    Oh, very nice. Awesome contribution to the discussion and to the RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS...As apposed to rolling over to a state granted privilege.

    It's a discussion forum. He's more than free to post his comments- whatever your perception of them may be. I thought his comment was well resounded and welcome in our forum. He has a CHP- therefor he is unconcerned with a 1000' GFSZ. I can say the same.. Get a CHP and don't sweat it. Don't get a CHP and sweat it. Those are your two options.

  8. #8
    Regular Member entartet17's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Aurora, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    206
    Quote Originally Posted by cscitney87 View Post
    Get a CHP and don't sweat it. Don't get a CHP and sweat it. Those are your two options.
    How about working to change the law?

    The whole point is that one shouldn't have to get a CCW.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Kingfish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Atlanta, Georgia, USA
    Posts
    1,276
    Quote Originally Posted by cscitney87 View Post
    It's a discussion forum. He's more than free to post his comments- whatever your perception of them may be. I thought his comment was well resounded and welcome in our forum. He has a CHP- therefor he is unconcerned with a 1000' GFSZ. I can say the same.. Get a CHP and don't sweat it. Don't get a CHP and sweat it. Those are your two options.
    And for those that the government have declared unfit for the privilege? What about them? What happens when the government says YOU are unfit for the privilege?

  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Castle Rock, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    392
    Minding your own business within 1000' feet of a school shouldn't necessitate permission from the government, and in CO it really doesn't. No State/Local LEO can enforce those federal laws (not even 287 G LEOs), so who cares. Washington won't change the law either so your only hope is the courts.

    If you're really worried about it, buy an 80% lower frame and drill out the remaining holes yourself. Then buy the parts kit and barrel and put it all together yourself or have your local gunsmith do it. No traceable serial number, hence no movement of the weapon in interstate commerce... IF you're that worried about it.

  11. #11
    Regular Member Kingfish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Atlanta, Georgia, USA
    Posts
    1,276
    Quote Originally Posted by centsi View Post
    Minding your own business within 1000' feet of a school shouldn't necessitate permission from the government, and in CO it really doesn't.
    The law is still the law. As law abiding citizens it is our duty to obey the law until it can be changed. Because a law is rarely or not likely to be enforced is no excuse to not follow the law.

    What each person chooses to do with the information that a law is not enforced is a decision all his own.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,187
    Guys, come on. Everyone is missing a very important question in this discussion:

    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...ulder-holsters

  13. #13
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Castle Rock, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    392
    Quote Originally Posted by Kingfish View Post
    The law is still the law. As law abiding citizens it is our duty to obey the law until it can be changed. Because a law is rarely or not likely to be enforced is no excuse to not follow the law.

    What each person chooses to do with the information that a law is not enforced is a decision all his own.
    I understand your point about changing the existing law and I support it on a general level. But this is an unjust law. It is a law that does not have it's roots in the powers designated to the government by the people. Therefore it is repugnant to the constitution, and laws that are repugnant to the constitution are null and void. They do not have the effect of law. If this is such a law, and I argue that it is, then it need be followed by law abiding citizens. Of course there are differences between unjust laws and laws that you just don't like, but we are talking here about an unjust and unconstitutional law, even if it has not been declared as such.

    The feds have no power to regulate this activity, and their attempt to do so after having the previous GFZA invalidated was joke. The commerce clause was written to ensure that goods and services between the states flowed freely, not to regulate the wattage of your light bulbs, the crops in your field or the carrying of firearms within 1000' of a school.

    Of course there are consequences for disobeying unjust laws, and anyone who does so much be prepared to face the consequences. I am arguing that the consequences for disobeying this unjust law are essentially 0, but you never know.

  14. #14
    Lone Star Veteran Ian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    712
    Quote Originally Posted by Kingfish View Post
    Um...Then why don't you support those who don't have a government permission slip? Whether by choice or by government rule. Saying you don't care about the OP's message because you have yours is a bit condescending (at least that is the way it comes across.)


    With all due respect one person is not responsible for a movement. Saying you took a lead role in the battle for OC would be quite appropriate though.
    Maybe "don't care" wasn't the correct words because I do care. I meant to say it doesn't affect me. Do I agree with the law? No. Do I want to break the law? No, hence why I have a CHP.

  15. #15
    Regular Member Kingfish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Atlanta, Georgia, USA
    Posts
    1,276
    Quote Originally Posted by centsi View Post
    I understand your point about changing the existing law and I support it on a general level. But this is an unjust law. It is a law that does not have it's roots in the powers designated to the government by the people. Therefore it is repugnant to the constitution, and laws that are repugnant to the constitution are null and void. They do not have the effect of law. If this is such a law, and I argue that it is, then it need be followed by law abiding citizens. Of course there are differences between unjust laws and laws that you just don't like, but we are talking here about an unjust and unconstitutional law, even if it has not been declared as such.

    The feds have no power to regulate this activity, and their attempt to do so after having the previous GFZA invalidated was joke. The commerce clause was written to ensure that goods and services between the states flowed freely, not to regulate the wattage of your light bulbs, the crops in your field or the carrying of firearms within 1000' of a school.

    Of course there are consequences for disobeying unjust laws, and anyone who does so much be prepared to face the consequences. I am arguing that the consequences for disobeying this unjust law are essentially 0, but you never know.
    It's a tough call. It really is.

    It is though when you come right down to it a matter of opinion.

    See, in my opinion all speed limits, vehicle registration, emissions requirements, auto safety inspections, insurance requirements, seat belt laws, et al....Are all unconstitutional as they encroach on the right to travel. But my opinion that these are unconstitutional does not matter in the slightest.

    We cannot as law abiding citizens take it upon ourselves to ignore the law no matter how egregious we perceive them to be.

    We are getting our country back. It is just going to take time. Ignorance has gotten us where we are today and enlightenment will take us where we need to be.

  16. #16
    Regular Member Kingfish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Atlanta, Georgia, USA
    Posts
    1,276
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian View Post
    Maybe "don't care" wasn't the correct words because I do care. I meant to say it doesn't affect me. Do I agree with the law? No. Do I want to break the law? No, hence why I have a CHP.
    Well, you may not care for the plight of those that the government has declared unfit for a permission slip to exercise a right (a right that the government says cannot be exercised without one) or those that choose to refuse to ask for permission but some of us do.

    I will have no problems getting a CWP when I get out to CO and will get one but I will still support those that either choose not to or those that cannot through arbitrary and unreasonable restrictions.
    Last edited by Kingfish; 08-19-2010 at 03:41 PM.

  17. #17
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748
    Getting back on topic, there have been successful prosecutions post-Lopez: http://www.usacarry.com/forums/polit...important.html

  18. #18
    Lone Star Veteran Ian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    712
    Quote Originally Posted by Kingfish View Post
    Well, you may not care for the plight of those that the government has declared unfit for a permission slip to exercise a right (a right that the government says cannot be exercised without one) or those that choose to refuse to ask for permission but some of us do.

    I will have no problems getting a CWP when I get out to CO and will get one but I will still support those that either choose not to or those that cannot through arbitrary and unreasonable restrictions.
    Did you READ my post? I said I care. Stop being a confrontational jerk and go troll your own state's section.
    Last edited by Ian; 08-20-2010 at 06:14 PM.

  19. #19
    Regular Member Kingfish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Atlanta, Georgia, USA
    Posts
    1,276
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian View Post
    Did you READ my post? I said I care. Stop being a confrontational jerk and go troll your own state's section.
    Ian, I am confrontational with anyone who cares nothing for the RIGHTS of others.

    Oh, and Colorado IS my own state, I just don't live there yet.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    140
    If you're really worried about it, buy an 80% lower frame and drill out the remaining holes yourself
    Where do you get 80% frames?

    The law is still the law. As law abiding citizens it is our duty to obey the law until it can be changed. Because a law is rarely or not likely to be enforced is no excuse to not follow the law.
    I have to ignore the law, my house is backed up to an elementary school. I also carry openly when I go outside.

  21. #21
    Lone Star Veteran Ian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    712
    Quote Originally Posted by Kingfish View Post
    Ian, I am confrontational with anyone who cares nothing for the RIGHTS of others.

    Oh, and Colorado IS my own state, I just don't live there yet.
    After all I said you still think I don't care for the rights of others? Seriously go crawl back into your hole.

  22. #22
    Regular Member Kingfish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Atlanta, Georgia, USA
    Posts
    1,276
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian View Post
    Meh, I have a CHP so I don't really care.
    Words mean something.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Fort Collins, CO
    Posts
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by Kingfish View Post
    I will have no problems getting a CWP when I get out to CO and will get one but I will still support those that either choose not to or those that cannot through arbitrary and unreasonable restrictions.
    The CO CCW process requires you to sign away your right to privacy in the form of an authorized, by the applicant, background check. I don't know about you, but I'm not going to give-up one right in order to exercise another. That's why I'm never getting a CCW and I open carry everywhere I can. Places that don't let me, don't get my business.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Lakewood, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    1,250
    Quote Originally Posted by KD0EGE View Post
    The CO CCW process requires you to sign away your right to privacy in the form of an authorized, by the applicant, background check. I don't know about you, but I'm not going to give-up one right in order to exercise another. That's why I'm never getting a CCW and I open carry everywhere I can. Places that don't let me, don't get my business.
    That's a very hard line approach.

    Do you have a drivers license? If so- you signed away one (1) right for another.

    But keep on living righteously, if so falsely, to suite your needs.

  25. #25
    Regular Member ooghost1oo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    262
    Quote Originally Posted by cscitney87 View Post
    That's a very hard line approach.

    Do you have a drivers license? If so- you signed away one (1) right for another.

    But keep on living righteously, if so falsely, to suite your needs.
    A life lived righteously in one's values is the rare life of integrity. Your statement is of a life pessimistic and defeated. It's 'suit your needs', btw.

    You're not signing away a right having a DL, unless you're talking about being an organ donor. Are you one of those folks who thinks you have a 'right to drive'? You have a right to drive on your own roads--roads you own. But the gov't owns the streets. It's paid by our taxes, but it's their responsibility. Unless you want to repave, repair, and build roads out of your own pocket, thinking you have the right (not privilege) to drive on someone else's (or some entity's) property is silly and immature.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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