Gun Free School Zones Act of 1995

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Free_School_Zones_Act

I couldn't find anything on this forum about the federal law specifically, only about state-level school zone bans. This act prohibits carrying a gun within 1000 feet of a school property line, except for limited exceptions (having a license or permit to carry is one of them).

Notwithstanding its blatant and obvious unconstitutionality, this had been upheld by various courts. My question is, for those of you who open carry without CC permits, does this law affect how and where you carry? And are local police empowered to enforce this?

Actually, IIRC, the original form of the GFSZ law was struck down. Congress repassed it, adding language stating why they think the Interstate Commerce Clause justifies their authority to pass it.

If you carry a gun in a school, expect to be arrested. LEOs will find some State law to use. If the State does not have a GFSZ law, they will simply use DC. So, they don't need the federal law to arrest you. However, if you are in violation of the federal law, you can expect to be also (or only) charged under it.

I don't know of any charges ever filed using this law from casual carry within the 1000 feet. I suspect that, if any officer is foolish to try to arrest someone for carrying withing a 1000 feet of a school, the SCOTUS will, once again, strike the law down. It is still on the books because no one has been foolishly charged under it--yet.

eye95 said:

Actually, IIRC, the original form of the GFSZ law was struck down. Congress repassed it, adding language stating why they think the Interstate Commerce Clause justifies their authority to pass it.

If you carry a gun in a school, expect to be arrested. LEOs will find some State law to use. If the State does not have a GFSZ law, they will simply use DC. So, they don't need the federal law to arrest you. However, if you are in violation of the federal law, you can expect to be also (or only) charged under it.

I don't know of any charges ever filed using this law from casual carry within the 1000 feet. I suspect that, if any officer is foolish to try to arrest someone for carrying withing a 1000 feet of a school, the SCOTUS will, once again, strike the law down. It is still on the books because no one has been foolishly charged under it--yet.

Click to expand...

Depends on the state of course. People with CPLs OC in schools in Michigan. No arrests so far.

You can see here the changes between the original law and the current one. They are so minor I wonder how the Supreme Court could uphold it: http://www.gunlaws.com/Gun_Free_School_Zones_Act.pdf

The wikipedia article has links to 7 cases of federal prosecutions under this law. None of them have it as the sole charge, but the defendants were also charged with other felonies (drug crimes, other gun crimes). The only one that seems to challenge the law's constitutionality is United States v Nieves-Castaño (2007), where the defendant said the law was a denial of "due process" because it failed to specify how the 1000 feet distance was to be measured, but the court (5th Circuit Court of Appeals) rejected that argument and upheld the convection.

Regarding carrying in Michigan; yes carrying with a license would be legal under the federal law (and assuming there is no state law). I'm talking about people who OC and have no license (whether an OC or CC license), and there are a lot of those people on this forum. Under the current federal law it appears to me these people are committing felonies.

my state law allows for cary into a school if you are delivering a student to or from school.I'm in Missouri. I'm not brave enough to test the water on this one just yet. I am most concerned with federal law overshadowing the allowance of my state.

***Deleted***

Virginian683 said:

You can see here the changes between the original law and the current one. They are so minor I wonder how the Supreme Court could uphold it: http://www.gunlaws.com/Gun_Free_School_Zones_Act.pdf

Click to expand...

It probably would not stand a constitutional challenge. No one has brought into the courts AFAIK

Here in Texas, we don't have OC (yet!!). But the Texas CHL law prohibits carry on 'school property' then defines that as the interior of buildings, so carriage of a parent dropping off/picking up outside is legal.

mark-in-texas said:

Here in Texas, we don't have OC (yet!!). But the Texas CHL law prohibits carry on 'school property' then defines that as the interior of buildings, so carriage of a parent dropping off/picking up outside is legal.

Click to expand...

Interesting!

Adding to the quagmire of OC/CC laws throughout our collective union.

I swear, if our Founding Fathers had the slightest idea the prooblems CC might cause, or any carry, for that matter, they would have clearly enumerated carry-all rights, along with "in any and all mannner possibly conceivable" lingo simply to avoid this ridiculous line of crap.

PS: I spent one summer back in 1982 at the Library of Congress reading through hundreds of the 50,000+ documents written by our Founding Fathers, so I *think* I have a clue when it comes to their thoughts on an armed republic. With only about three exceptions, the other dozens were for it, unequivocably.

The next time you're near Washington D.C., make it a point to visit their heriitage reading room. Call ahead. It"s through the main doors, through the massive main area, and through a double-doorway about a third of the way down the back hall on the left.

Bring your white gloves, but what you'll read there will pop your eyes out of your sockets! These folks were WITH IT, Lol!

since9 said:

Interesting!

Adding to the quagmire of OC/CC laws throughout our collective union.

I swear, if our Founding Fathers had the slightest idea the prooblems CC might cause, or any carry, for that matter, they would have clearly enumerated carry-all rights, along with "in any and all mannner possibly conceivable" lingo simply to avoid this ridiculous line of crap.

PS: I spent one summer back in 1982 at the Library of Congress reading through hundreds of the 50,000+ documents written by our Founding Fathers, so I *think* I have a clue when it comes to their thoughts on an armed republic. With only about three exceptions, the other dozens were for it, unequivocably.

The next time you're near Washington D.C., make it a point to visit their heriitage reading room. Call ahead. It"s through the main doors, through the massive main area, and through a double-doorway about a third of the way down the back hall on the left.

Bring your white gloves, but what you'll read there will pop your eyes out of your sockets! These folks were WITH IT, Lol!

Click to expand...

Yes, our Founding Fathers were highly educated men...far better educated than the PhD's we have running around today. I believe if they had had the foresight to see how our corrupt politicians and courts would "reinterpret" the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and treat the Constitution as a "living document" they would have inserted the Bill of Rights "into" the Constitution and would have been explicitly clear about what they meant in their writings to avoid any confusion or manipulation of its contents. They would also have made it a "sealed" document where it could not have been amended. Lastly, they would have written a manual explaining what they had written and how it should be applied to the American society and made it a part of one's education. BTW, if I am not in error, the original Constitution did not state Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. It stated Life, Liberty, and Property. Property was vital to their security. Today, we have lost the right to truly "own" our property. We merely purchase the "privilege" to live on it. The thieving government can come in and take it from us any time they want.

kittyhawk63 said:

Yes, our Founding Fathers were highly educated men...far better educated than the PhD's we have running around today. I believe if they had had the foresight to see how our corrupt politicians and courts would "reinterpret" the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and treat the Constitution as a "living document" they would have inserted the Bill of Rights "into" the Constitution and would have been explicitly clear about what they meant in their writings to avoid any confusion or manipulation of its contents. They would also have made it a "sealed" document where it could not have been amended. Lastly, they would have written a manual explaining what they had written and how it should be applied to the American society and made it a part of one's education. BTW, if I am not in error, the original Constitution did not state Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. It stated Life, Liberty, and Property. Property was vital to their security. Today, we have lost the right to truly "own" our property. We merely purchase the "privilege" to live on it. The thieving government can come in and take it from us any time they want.

Click to expand...

Couple of things.

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are quite clear in their verbiage, meaning, and intent. The problems arise under the guise of contemporary interpretation (contemporary meaning any time after the inception of these documents). It is through interpretation where the devils have entered the folds.

The other thing is " if I am not in error, the original Constitution did not state Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. It stated Life, Liberty, and Property". While you are correct in the meat of this statement, you have the wrong document. This does not appear in the Constitution, but rather in the Declaration of Independence.

Virginian683 said:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Free_School_Zones_Act

I couldn't find anything on this forum about the federal law specifically, only about state-level school zone bans. This act prohibits carrying a gun within 1000 feet of a school property line, except for limited exceptions (having a license or permit to carry is one of them).

Notwithstanding its blatant and obvious unconstitutionality, this had been upheld by various courts. My question is, for those of you who open carry without CC permits, does this law affect how and where you carry? And are local police empowered to enforce this?

Click to expand...

Virginia does not have a state level GFSZ (1000') law.

There are exceptions to our state law found in 18.2-308.1
http://leg1.state.va.us/000/cod/18.2-308.HTM

According to council, local LEOs may enforce federal law, but it his been our experience that is rare.

The Declaration of Independence did indeed state, Life, Liberty, and Property. They changed the property to the pursuit of happiness because of the slave states. They did not want to give them any power to keep slavery indefinitely. A good many of our founders were slave owners and considered slaves property. Hence also the 3/5ths person rule. The slave states were larger in population due to the slave population, and the abolitionists were bound and determined not to have a non-voting population hold sway over the congress. This and of course the Civil War, also known as the "War of Northern Aggression" Was the eventual ending of slavery in this country. Also take note that while it is kept a big secret, slavery still exists. Mostly in the Arab nations. The Saudis for example "Hire" many foreign workers to do the menial tasks, but...
Having said that. I truly hope the School zone law gets repealed, overturned or whatever. In the Armor corps we had a saying,, Personnel Carriers were just canned people, all bunched together to save machine gun ammo. And the school zone laws only allow the crazies to have a "target rich environment."

Virginian683 said:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Free_School_Zones_Act

I couldn't find anything on this forum about the federal law specifically, only about state-level school zone bans.

Click to expand...

The link to the federal law is at the bottom of the wiki article you linked, under "References."

Notwithstanding its blatant and obvious unconstitutionality, this had been upheld by various courts. My question is, for those of you who open carry without CC permits, does this law affect how and where you carry? And are local police empowered to enforce this?

Click to expand...

CC permits have nothing to do with OC. I'm aware that in some states, a CC permit is a prerequisite for OCing, but that's a bastardized application of the law, not an appropriate employment of it. The fact that any state has any law on the books (other than Constitutional Carry) requiring a "permit" to exercise a Constitutional RIGHT is ludicrous.

Fortunately, at least four states have been courageous enough to recognize and respect our Constitutional rights.

The way the federal law reads, you have to have a permit issued by the state the school is located in. Therefore, if I am OCing, but I have a CC Permit (which is what I do in WV) I can be within 1000 of a school. However, in WV you do not need a permit to just OC. Those doing that, however, ARE in violation of the federal law when they walk or drive within 1000 ft of a school. There is no exemption for LEO's not on duty. That means that a cop going from his house, to his car and driving to work prior to "going on duty" violates the federal law every time he drives within 1000 ft of a school if he does not have a CC permit. ALSO, there is no allowance for reciprocity (There is a letter on Wiki from the BATF to someone that explains that they do not honor reciprocity if you want to Google it). That is why although WV and PA are reciprocal, I obtained a PA non-resident permit. I live in WV but my office is in PA and I drive past 3 PA schools on my way to work. The lady at the counter informed me that I am reciprocal and I replied, "yes, I know but..." and explained the federal law. She agreed it was a very stupid law. It, in effect, nullifies the reciprocity that many states now have. Fortuneately, It seems to be only used against the "bad guys" as an additional charge.
some things to consider. you can be on an interstate that passes OVER a school and be within the 1000 ft.
Also - what if you are standing at the border of one state and there is a school less than 1000 ft away ion the other state - per this law, you would be in violation if you did not have a permit issued by the second state even though you were completely legal in the state you were standing in.

SgtC said:

Those doing that, however, ARE in violation of the federal law when they walk or drive within 1000 ft of a school.

Click to expand...

"Drive?" Isn't that a state-specific thing? From what I understand, CO considers vehicles to be an extension of one's home, so OCing in a vehicle (aka "driving") within 1000' of a school is fine.

Is this incorrect? If it is, half the city is off-limits!

SgtC said:

The way the federal law reads, you have to have a permit issued by the state the school is located in...

Click to expand...

Actually, it doesn't:

"(ii) if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located or a political subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or political subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license;"

"Is licensed" does not necessarily mean "has a licensed issued by." It literally means "has permission to." Through reciprocity, we can be licensed to carry in another State, even though that State has not issued the license.

I know that this is not the way that BATFE interprets the law. However, their interpretation should be considered by any court, just as the one I am presenting should be. Courts, not the BATFE, are charged with clarifying unclear law.

I am not advocating that someone should test the BATFE interpretation, just that, if someone gets arrested and can argue this, they should.

That's exactly how I interpret it. License can be interpreted as permission as well as a legal document. If you are carrying on reciprocity and your permit involved a background check, I think you have met the conditions of the law IMO. The person at the BATFE who issued the opinion is neither a DOJ attorney or a judge nor even a top level BATFE official. He is the chief of some section of BATFE. I think his opinion is no more valid than yours or mine and since no court has ruled on it. I don't worry about it.

If BATFE wants to issue a stronger policy, it should be more than the opinion of some mid level paper pusher who has no enforcement authority whatsoever as far as I can tell.

Virginian683 said:

denial of "due process" because it failed to specify how the 1000 feet distance was to be measured
...I'm talking about people who OC and have no license... Under the current federal law it appears to me these people are committing felonies.

Click to expand...

I think it's a violation of due process when the State doesn't clearly mark the "school zones". Big orange signs, paint the curbs, etc. Make it clear that no legal firearms are allowed.

And yes, carry within 1000' of a school w/o a state permission slip & you could be charged under federal law.
I was amused when a LEO friend of mine seemed indignant that even with the fancy federal LEOSA allowing him to carry wherever, whenever, he couldn't carry in a school zone.

since9 said:

I swear, if our Founding Fathers had the slightest idea the prooblems CC might cause, or any carry, for that matter, they would have clearly enumerated carry-all rights, along with "in any and all mannner possibly conceivable" lingo simply to avoid this ridiculous line of crap.

Click to expand...

+1000

PS: I spent one summer back in 1982 at the Library of Congress

Click to expand...

:drool: you lucky dog, you.