• 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.

Federal School Zone?

Bronson

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2008
Messages
2,126
Location
Battle Creek, Michigan, USA
Hi to all the Alaska folks. I'm from the MI forum but I have a question that I'm hoping you'll be able to answer.

Since Alaska doesn't license you to carry a firearm how do you deal with the Fed. School Zone law? I've already asked this over on the Vermont forum but I'd be interested in reading your comments as well.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...2----000-.html

Paragraph q, sub-paragraph 2


(A) It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to 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.

(B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the possession of a firearm—

(i) on private property not part of school grounds;

(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;

(iii) that is—

(I) not loaded; and

(II) in a locked container, or a locked firearms rack that is on a motor vehicle;


(iv) by an individual for use in a program approved by a school in the school zone;

(v) by an individual in accordance with a contract entered into between a school in the school zone and the individual or an employer of the individual;

(vi) by a law enforcement officer acting in his or her official capacity; or

(vii) that is unloaded and is possessed by an individual while traversing school premises for the purpose of gaining access to public or private lands open to hunting, if the entry on school premises is authorized by school authorities.

Both the License To Purchase and the Concealed Pistol License that MI has exempt us from this law per (ii) but I was curious how gun carriers in states that don't have either of these approach this issue.

Thanks,

Bronson
 
Last edited:

aadvark

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
1,597
Location
, ,
Alaska issues Licenses that are Federal School Zone compliant under 18 U.S.C. 922(q), per Alaska Code AS 18.65.705.
 

aadvark

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
1,597
Location
, ,
The Permits that Alaska Issues are 'Shall-Issue' and they are Optional.
However, Persons with such Permits benefit in three ways: 1. Exception from 18 U.S.C. 922(q), 2. OMIT, AND 3. InterState Reciprocity, mainly, with the lower 48 States.
 
Last edited:

c45man

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2008
Messages
137
Location
, ,
If one has a permit issued by pennsylvania, but is carrying in Fla., which recognizes pa. permits, is that individual able to carry in a school zone in fla? I do not believe it is lawful, the law reads that the individual has to have a permit issued by the state where one is actually carrying in a school zone. Reciprocity does have its pitfalls. School zones pop up very quickly and such zones cover a pretty large radius around the actual school building.
 

Brimstone Baritone

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2010
Messages
786
Location
Leeds, Alabama, USA
I wouldn't be too worried about that law anyway. The original law was already declared unconstitutional once, and adding the bit about 'interstate commerce' doesn't (shouldn't) change that one bit. I also have never seen or heard of anyone tried and convicted under that law since the revision, so maybe you can be the first? :p

YMMV, IANAL, TINLA
 

kwikrnu

Banned
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
1,956
Location
Brentwood, Tennessee
I wouldn't be too worried about that law anyway. The original law was already declared unconstitutional once, and adding the bit about 'interstate commerce' doesn't (shouldn't) change that one bit. I also have never seen or heard of anyone tried and convicted under that law since the revision, so maybe you can be the first? :p

YMMV, IANAL, TINLA

I'm pretty sure I have read of people getting convicted. These cases came from Wisconsin Open Carry.

United States v Belen Nieves-Castano

United States v Dorsey

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)
 

Bronson

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2008
Messages
2,126
Location
Battle Creek, Michigan, USA
So if someone does not get the optional permit then they cannot carry withing a 1000' of school property....correct?

I'm asking all of this because on another forum it was brought up that Utah is trying to go the same way AZ recently went...no permit needed to carry open or concealed. The UT folks on that forum were very supportive of the idea but when I asked how the proposed law addressed the Fed. School Zone law I heard cyber-crickets. One of the UT guys asked "how do they do it in Alaska, Vermont, and Arizona?" so here I am asking you folks how you deal with it.

Thanks for the info.

Bronson
 

kwikrnu

Banned
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
1,956
Location
Brentwood, Tennessee
So if someone does not get the optional permit then they cannot carry withing a 1000' of school property....correct?

From what I understand you don't have to worry about the federal GFSZ if you carry an antique firearm. They are those which were made before 1898 or any which use a percussion cap or flintlock.
 

lockman

State Researcher
Joined
Aug 19, 2006
Messages
1,193
Location
Elgin, Illinois, USA
Negate need to apply for a license.

The state can also pass legislation specifically stating all persons not prohibited to possess firearms in VT are considered licensed by the state for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. 922 (q)(2). This would cover residents and non-residents alike.

Also posted in VT forum.
 

kwikrnu

Banned
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
1,956
Location
Brentwood, Tennessee
The state can also pass legislation specifically stating all persons not prohibited to possess firearms in VT are considered licensed by the state for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. 922 (q)(2). This would cover residents and non-residents alike.

Also posted in VT forum.

Why would they do that? There is no money in it for them.
 

FMCDH

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2008
Messages
2,037
Location
St. Louis, MO
Why would they do that? There is no money in it for them.

Its never been about the money in Vermont.

Others are learning.

Personally, I like the way Alaska does it with the optional permit designed to get the most reciprocity country wide for its citizens.

I think Washington is about 5 or 6 years away, provided we can replace the current Governor with one that is pro 2a.
 

FMCDH

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2008
Messages
2,037
Location
St. Louis, MO

The common thing your missing here is that each of the convictions of the GFSZA in these cases were preceded by other felony charges and prior convictions, such as for drugs, murder, aggravated assault, felon in possession of a firearm, etc.

I think what we are saying here, is that there are no known convictions of the GFSZA that weren't preceded by much more serious crime(s) first. A charge by itself, I don't think its ever happened, and MANY state/local LEAs will not arrest for it.

At least, not among the cases you cite. Granted, some of the links wouldn't open or were broken.
 

Ca Patriot

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2010
Messages
2,330
Location
, ,
The common thing your missing here is that each of the convictions of the GFSZA in these cases were preceded by other felony charges and prior convictions, such as for drugs, murder, aggravated assault, felon in possession of a firearm, etc.

I think what we are saying here, is that there are no known convictions of the GFSZA that weren't preceded by much more serious crime(s) first. A charge by itself, I don't think its ever happened, and MANY state/local LEAs will not arrest for it.

At least, not among the cases you cite. Granted, some of the links wouldn't open or were broken.

I agree. In addition, it appears those convictions were in Puerto Rico and one in the Virgin Islands. I only see one in the states.

I also think that if a law abiding citizen got arrested merely for a federal gun free zone they would get better representation and take their cases to the supreme court.
 

Anubis

Newbie
Joined
Sep 16, 2006
Messages
451
Location
Arapahoe County CO, ,
I wouldn't be too worried about that law anyway.

Of course not. I trust the BATFE leaders to never get a wild hair and decide to enforce 922 by trapping armed citizens passing by a school. BATFE has never done anything gun owners don't like.

Another problem to consider is that section 921 has the definition of school zone, but does not have a definition of "licensed by the state" mentioned in 922. Is that a CC license? Is it a permit to buy, like the Illinois FOID card? Some states require no permit to purchase and no permit to carry in a vehicle, whether they have a permit system.
 
Top