Meh, I have a CHP so I don't really care.
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.
Here's the over-turning of that 1990 law:
Meh, I have a CHP so I don't really care.
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.
Last edited by Ian; 08-18-2010 at 06:59 PM.
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.
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.
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.
What each person chooses to do with the information that a law is not enforced is a decision all his own.
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 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.
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 02:41 PM.
Where do you get 80% frames?If you're really worried about it, buy an 80% lower frame and drill out the remaining holes yourself
I have to ignore the law, my house is backed up to an elementary school. I also carry openly when I go outside.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.
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.
Last edited by ooghost1oo; 08-31-2010 at 09:42 PM.