Just out of curiosity, why did you bring this up?In essence, Title 18 U.S.C Part 1 Chapter 44 Section 922(q) known as the Federal Gun Free School Zones Act of 1995 currently on the books, effectively bans all concealed carry reciprocity agreements between States, by making it illegal for any person to have a functional firearm within 1000 Feet of the property line of any Elementary or High School in our country, with very few exceptions.
Title 18 Part 1 Chapter 44 Section 922 (unlawful acts)
United States Code - TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - PART I - CRIMES - CHAPTER 44 - FIREARMS - section 922
BATFE Opinion (2002) on Reciprocity: http://www.handgunlaw.us/documents/batf_school_zone.pdf
The original version of this law, passed in 1990, was struck down by the US Supreme Court in "United States v Lopez (1995)," because Congress had not claimed a connection to "interstate commerce," however the second version, the one which is currently on the books, was upheld as recently as 2005 by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in the case United States v Dorsey.
One exception to this law, is if the firearm is unloaded and in a locked container.
A second exception is having the firearm "on private property not part of school grounds." Remember, the roads/highways/sidewalks are not private property, so this exception does not apply while driving on public streets.
A third exception, is if the person possessing the firearm has a concealed carry permit issued by the State in which the school zone is located. This means that as the law is written, and as it has been interpreted by BATFE, if a person with a concealed carry permit is in any State other than the State that physically issued their permit, and they drive within 1000 feet of any K-12 school (which is impossible to avoid) with an unlocked gun, they are committing a federal crime. Violation of this law is punishable by up to five (5) years in federal prison and a conviction will bar a person from owning firearms for life
There was even a case in 2000 (United States v Tait) where an Alabama concealed carry permit holder was prosecuted under this federal law, for carrying a firearm in Alabama. The prosecution claimed that Mr. Tait's Alabama permit did not exempt him from the Federal Gun Free School Zones Act, even in Alabama.
In another case, United States v Nieves-Castaño, a woman was actually convicted under the Federal Gun Free School Zones Act for having a firearm in her home! Her home (a third floor apartment) just happened to be within 1000 feet of a school and it happened to be public property (a housing project). She was not a student, and her conduct had absolutely nothing to do with the school. This conviction was upheld by the Federal Appeals Court for the First Circuit in 2007.
Ironically, law enforcement officers carrying a handgun under LEOSA are not exempt from the GFSZA, unless they are acting in their official capacity. This means that a law enforcement officer, carrying under LEOSA while on vacation with their family, can not drive within 1000 feet of a school without risking five years in federal prison.
Also note, there is no exception in the law for the discharge of a firearm by anyone other than a law enforcement officer acting in their official capacity on public property while in a school zone (within 1000 feet of the property line of any K-12 school), under any circumstance. This could conceivably be an issue if you're the victim of a violent crime while on public property such as roads, sidewalks, fair grounds, city parks, etc.
Many people think this law has never been enforced. Unfortunately this is not the case. This revised law has indeed been enforced, against several people, below are a few examples:
United States v Danks (1999) USA v. Jordan Danks
United States v Tait (2000) (Attempted prosecution of an Alabama permit holder) 202 F3d 1320 United States v. Tait | OpenJurist
United States v Haywood (2003) UNITED STATES of America v. Ira HAYWOOD, Appellant.
United States v Dorsey (2005) (Upheld the revised law as constitutional) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Nikos Delano DORSEY, Defendant-Appellant.
United States v Smith (2005) USA v. Smith This case says that the mere movement of the gun's component parts in Interstate Commerce is enough to satisfy the jurisdictional element needed for conviction.
United States v Nieves-Castaño (2007) UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Belen NIEVES-CASTAÑO, Defendant, Appellant. A woman was convicted for having a gun in her home; which happened to be within 1000ft of a school.
United States v Weekes (2007) [UNITED]UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. PHINEHAS WEEKES, Appellant STATES OF AMERICA v. PHINEHAS WEEKES[/url]
United States v Benally (2007) United States vs. Benally
United States v Cruz-Rodriguez (2008) Untitled #1668141