Please enlighten me on Virginia law...schools and guns???

palerider116 said:

.... It is impractical to enforce a law like GFZA 1990 on an OC'er because in every city it would create impassable zones that would deprive someone of their very residence or ability to traverse entire sections of the city.

Click to expand...

Or stop carrying guns entirely - I suspect that's really what Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) and the people behind him had in mind. I think it was an intentional trick - their real purpose was to make it illegal to carry guns in any and all urban areas.

By the way, it is my private opinion (not legal advice) that the statute is (still) unenforceable because state law governing ownership, possession, and use of firearms that are not actually moving in interstate commerce pre-empts federal law, because the states have supreme power under the Constitution over property law, public health, public welfare, and the police power.

Certainly by chiseling out "gun free zones" it is easier to add onto conquered territory. Once you ban weapons from schools, you could began to reach into other areas such as no guns where student field trips are taking place or no guns near bus stops for school buses. As with most gun laws, this is just another "anchor law" for more laws to be based upon.

This law would serve best as an enhanced penalty i.e. if you commit X (insert PWID, unjustified homicide, agg assault, malicious wounding, and other felonies) crime while in possession of a firearm within X feet of a school, an automatic penalty is attached to the sentence. That way, if you are actually committing X crime, you have no business with a firearm anyway.

Title 18 U.S.C §922(q) The Gun Free School Zones Act of 1995 States:
(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;

Grapeshot said:

Title 18 U.S.C §922(q) The Gun Free School Zones Act of 1995 States:
(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;

Click to expand...

So yeah, far be it from me to disagree with a "user" opinion, and perhaps it's majority wishful thinking on my part, but when I see "licensed to do so by the state..." that shouts reciprocity loud and clear to me. Virginia has said that my Utah permit allows me to carry a concealed handgun. I don't know how it could be any clearer without actually saying it.

I guess it would come down to what a legal definition of "licensed to do so" would be.

ETA: As long as the other state requires a background check, and Virginia uses that to determine reciprocity, that would seem to cover all the bases.

TFred

Note that it appears that a CHP licensee OCing in one of these zones needn't be in possession of the CHP, nor need the licensee present it... Odd eh?

TFred said:

So yeah, far be it from me to disagree with a "user" opinion, and perhaps it's majority wishful thinking on my part, but when I see "licensed to do so by the state..." that shouts reciprocity loud and clear to me. Virginia has said that my Utah permit allows me to carry a concealed handgun. I don't know how it could be any clearer without actually saying it.

I guess it would come down to what a legal definition of "licensed to do so" would be.

ETA: As long as the other state requires a background check, and Virginia uses that to determine reciprocity, that would seem to cover all the bases.

TFred

Click to expand...

yes that is obvious but BATF has stated (wrongly) that it must be actually issued by the state the school is located in. Complete BS (like the shoestring is a machine gun thing, the malfunctioning gun is a machinegun, etc.)

TFred said:

So yeah, far be it from me to disagree with a "user" opinion, and perhaps it's majority wishful thinking on my part, but when I see "licensed to do so by the state..." that shouts reciprocity loud and clear to me. Virginia has said that my Utah permit allows me to carry a concealed handgun. I don't know how it could be any clearer without actually saying it.

I guess it would come down to what a legal definition of "licensed to do so" would be.

ETA: As long as the other state requires a background check, and Virginia uses that to determine reciprocity, that would seem to cover all the bases.

TFred

Click to expand...

Not in any state unless the permit has been issued by the same exact state.
"is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located."
Title 18 U.S.C §922(q)

Grapeshot said:

Not in any state unless the permit has been issued by the same exact state.
"is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located."
Title 18 U.S.C §922(q)

Click to expand...

I know what the code says, we all do. The question is what does the code mean?

This will never be resolved until the law is changed, or until it sees a day in court, so I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm just sayin...

A "license" is not a physical piece of paper or card, it is the intangible status of being allowed to do something. Virginia explicitly allows me to carry a concealed handgun because I have been granted that same allowance by the state of Utah. I say that means that Virginia has licensed ("allowed") me to carry a concealed handgun within their borders, based on the background check that the state of Utah has conducted.

The code does not say "issued by", it says "licensed by". If Virginia did not allow me to carry concealed based on my Utah permit, then I would not be licensed to do so in Virginia. But I am.

Like I said... it'll never be fully resolved until it is. We can all talk until we're blue, but none of us will know with any more certainty than the other which view will be enforced.

And the anti-gun nuts are loving every minute of it.

TFred

Licensed to do so by the state - assumes that the state grants a license for carrying a firearm. What about Alaska or Vermont? No license issued. We have another glaring contradiction between a federal law and state sovereignty.

TFred said:

So yeah, far be it from me to disagree with a "user" opinion, and perhaps it's majority wishful thinking on my part, but when I see "licensed to do so by the state..." that shouts reciprocity loud and clear to me. Virginia has said that my Utah permit allows me to carry a concealed handgun. I don't know how it could be any clearer without actually saying it.

I guess it would come down to what a legal definition of "licensed to do so" would be.

ETA: As long as the other state requires a background check, and Virginia uses that to determine reciprocity, that would seem to cover all the bases.

TFred

Click to expand...

That's the federal statute I was talking about - not Va. law. Nothing to do with reciprocity. Va. law applies on school grounds if you have a CHP, because that is the "license to do so" the federal statute is talking about. So you get a pass on the fed law if you have a CHP, but then Va. law applies. It's less strict, but still something to be taken into consideration. That's the one that says you can carry in your car with a permit while in your car and on the driveway/parking lot.

palerider116 said:

Licensed to do so by the state - assumes that the state grants a license for carrying a firearm. What about Alaska or Vermont? No license issued. We have another glaring contradiction between a federal law and state sovereignty.

Click to expand...

That's certainly true; and it's my opinion that state law pre-empts federal law on issues relating to ownership, possession and use. But I agree with TFred's analysis - the key point is that licensure is a status, not a piece of paper or certificate. We use the phrase, "driver's license" to refer to the certificate of licensure issued by the state, but that card is NOT a "license", because, as TFred pointed out, the license itself is intangible. Permit, license, means the same thing, but in each case, represent an intangible status.

So if you have a Utah permit which Virginia will recognize, then you do have "license" or "permission" from the Commonwealth, to carry in the school zones of Virginia, the the extent permitted by Virginia law. What you can't do is go to New York and visit school zones there, since NY (I think) doesn't recognize any kind of firearms related permit issued by any other state. That is, you don't get any exemption from the federal statute in NY just because you have a Utah or Virginia permit.