Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 48

Thread: Someone remind me about "school zones"

  1. #1
    Regular Member Big Boy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    STL, MO
    Posts
    443

    Someone remind me about "school zones"

    Having recently moved to Columbia and the downtown area being feet away from the Mizzou campus I'm trying to remember the laws involved with schools.

    I looked through Columbia ordinances and couldn't find ANYTHING.

    Looking for laws concerning CCW and OC. Are the school laws one of those CCW "laws" that aren't actually a criminal offense until asked to leave and you refuse? Is there some sort of distance you need to keep from the campus?

  2. #2
    Regular Member cshoff's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    , Missouri, USA
    Posts
    687
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Boy View Post
    Having recently moved to Columbia and the downtown area being feet away from the Mizzou campus I'm trying to remember the laws involved with schools.

    I looked through Columbia ordinances and couldn't find ANYTHING.

    Looking for laws concerning CCW and OC. Are the school laws one of those CCW "laws" that aren't actually a criminal offense until asked to leave and you refuse? Is there some sort of distance you need to keep from the campus?
    There are two sets of laws that regulate firearms in regards to schools; state and federal. Do you have a Missouri CCW endorsement?

  3. #3
    Regular Member ChiangShih's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    KC
    Posts
    628
    I would also like to know about this. I go to UMKC downtown and it owns/operates a bunch of buildings in the downtown area. Some are blocks away but still considered part of campus. I am in and out of the area quite a bit and I do have a CCW. Although it is against school policy, is it illegal to CCW on campus or campus property?
    Tiocfaidh Ar La

  4. #4
    Regular Member cshoff's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    , Missouri, USA
    Posts
    687
    Here are the relevant state laws on schools:

    571.030. 1. A person commits the crime of unlawful use of weapons if he or she knowingly:
    .
    .
    .
    (10) Carries a firearm, whether loaded or unloaded, or any other weapon readily capable of lethal use into any school, onto any school bus, or onto the premises of any function or activity sponsored or sanctioned by school officials or the district school board.
    .
    .
    .
    4. Subdivisions (1), (8), and (10) of subsection 1 of this section shall not apply to any person who has a valid concealed carry endorsement issued pursuant to sections 571.101 to 571.121 or a valid permit or endorsement to carry concealed firearms issued by another state or political subdivision of another state.
    Then the language in RSMO 571.107:

    571.107. 1. A concealed carry endorsement issued pursuant to sections 571.101 to 571.121 or a concealed carry endorsement or permit issued by another state or political subdivision of another state shall authorize the person in whose name the permit or endorsement is issued to carry concealed firearms on or about his or her person or vehicle throughout the state. No driver's license or nondriver's license containing a concealed carry endorsement issued pursuant to sections 571.101 to 571.121 or a concealed carry endorsement or permit issued by another state or political subdivision of another state shall authorize any person to carry concealed firearms into:
    .
    .
    .
    (10) Any higher education institution or elementary or secondary school facility without the consent of the governing body of the higher education institution or a school official or the district school board. Possession of a firearm in a vehicle on the premises of any higher education institution or elementary or secondary school facility shall not be a criminal offense so long as the firearm is not removed from the vehicle or brandished while the vehicle is on the premises;
    .
    .
    .
    2. Carrying of a concealed firearm in a location specified in subdivisions (1) to (17) of subsection 1 of this section by any individual who holds a concealed carry endorsement issued pursuant to sections 571.101 to 571.121 shall not be a criminal act but may subject the person to denial to the premises or removal from the premises....<snip>
    Here are the relevant Federal Codes. First, the Gun Free Schools Act:

    SEC. 4141. GUN-FREE REQUIREMENTS.
    (a) SHORT TITLE- This subpart may be cited as the Gun-Free Schools Act'.
    (b) REQUIREMENTS-
    (1) IN GENERAL- Each State receiving Federal funds under any title of this Act shall have in effect a State law requiring local educational agencies to expel from school for a period of not less than 1 year a student who is determined to have brought a firearm to a school, or to have possessed a firearm at a school, under the jurisdiction of local educational agencies in that State, except that such State law shall allow the chief administering officer of a local educational agency to modify such expulsion requirement for a student on a case-by-case basis if such modification is in writing.
    (2) CONSTRUCTION- Nothing in this subpart shall be construed to prevent a State from allowing a local educational agency that has expelled a student from such a student's regular school setting from providing educational services to such student in an alternative setting.
    (3) DEFINITION- For the purpose of this section, the term firearm' has the same meaning given such term in section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code.
    (c) SPECIAL RULE- The provisions of this section shall be construed in a manner consistent with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
    (d) REPORT TO STATE- Each local educational agency requesting assistance from the State educational agency that is to be provided from funds made available to the State under any title of this Act shall provide to the State, in the application requesting such assistance —
    (1) an assurance that such local educational agency is in compliance with the State law required by subsection (b); and
    (2) a description of the circumstances surrounding any expulsions imposed under the State law required by subsection (b), including —
    (A) the name of the school concerned;
    (B) the number of students expelled from such school; and
    (C) the type of firearms concerned.
    (e) REPORTING- Each State shall report the information described in subsection (d) to the Secretary on an annual basis.
    (f) DEFINITION- For the purpose of subsection (d), the term school' means any setting that is under the control and supervision of the local educational agency for the purpose of student activities approved and authorized by the local educational agency.
    (g) EXCEPTION- Nothing in this section shall apply to a firearm that is lawfully stored inside a locked vehicle on school property, or if it is for activities approved and authorized by the local educational agency and the local educational agency adopts appropriate safeguards to ensure student safety.
    And then, US Code:

    USC § 921. Definitions
    (25) The term “school zone” means—
    (A) in, or on the grounds of, a public, parochial or private school; or
    (B) within a distance of 1,000 feet from the grounds of a public, parochial or private school.
    (26) The term “school” means a school which provides elementary or secondary education, as determined under State law.
    .
    .
    .
    USC § 922. Unlawful acts (q) (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.
    Last edited by cshoff; 04-26-2011 at 10:09 AM.

  5. #5
    Regular Member Big Boy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    STL, MO
    Posts
    443
    So, to make sure I understand what I read correctly, and yes I do have a CCW, I'm not committing a criminal offense. Whether OC or CCW. And even if I happen to cross the corners of the campus, I have no worries other than being asked to leave, and no repercussions from the school considering I do not attend the school. Is this correct?



    Chiang I believe that would be the only hindrance to you, if the school has a policy against it they can expel you.

  6. #6
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,924
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Boy View Post
    So, to make sure I understand what I read correctly, and yes I do have a CCW, I'm not committing a criminal offense. Whether OC or CCW. And even if I happen to cross the corners of the campus, I have no worries other than being asked to leave, and no repercussions from the school considering I do not attend the school. Is this correct?



    Chiang I believe that would be the only hindrance to you, if the school has a policy against it they can expel you.
    I would highly recommend against OC within the zone especially if a campus police force exist. Many timessuch forces have very limited training and you might wind up facing the boom end of a pistol with a very nervous person on the decision end.

    You also will likely get that request to leave in very short order. Inside school zones isn't a good place to educate as a very large portion of even the gun community believe this is a federal felony, not to mention the fuel it gives the antigunners if an encounter happens.

    The problem is, a vast majority of dimwits think criminals care about gun free zones despite how many times mass shootings happen in them.

    I do not believe in controlling others behaviors, but I think OC in a gun free school zone invites a host of problems and would poorly represent the gun community if the media got a chanctoe
    exploit it.

  7. #7
    Regular Member Big Boy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    STL, MO
    Posts
    443
    I have no intention or desire to OC on campus or in a school zone. Was just making sure there wasn't some rule about so many feet away or what not. Downtown broadway where everything is, is only about 3 streets over from the edge of the campus.

  8. #8
    Regular Member xc9subcompact's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Secure Undisclosed
    Posts
    106
    If you are licensed by the state (MO) to possess a firearm, the federal GFSZ act does not apply to you.
    (it probably doesn't apply to anyone, in reality, but that is a subject of debate)

    That doesn't mean the State laws won't apply. You still need to comply with any state laws.
    In MO, it appears that if you are not a student of the school and you have the aforementioned license, you are not committing a criminal act. It appears that there are no regulatory rules that apply either. You can be asked to leave if in a school facility. If you don't leave, it's possible you can get a ticket. Do it again, the ticket gets bigger and can result in a suspension of the license. Do it again, the ticket gets even bigger and the permit is revoked.

    (suspensions and revocations only apply if it is a MO issued license)

    In MO, if you are a student, even with the license, you could be expelled.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    st louis
    Posts
    640
    (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,


    may i assume this means if you have a MO permit you would not be violating USC § 921?

    but i guess an out of state license is not valid and it would be criminal?

    does USC § 921 pertain to both cc and oc? it says possession of a firearm so i am assuming so.

  10. #10
    Regular Member xc9subcompact's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Secure Undisclosed
    Posts
    106
    You are correct. A MO issued permit makes the GFSZ act irrelevant to you.

    There is some belief that any permit that is authorized by the state (reciprocity, recognition) is also meeting the requirement.
    There are those that will argue that it does not.

    But with a MO issued permit, there is no doubt.
    The GFSZ act does not mention concealed or open carry. That is a State issue.
    The only restrictions on method of carry of a firearm applies to someone who is not exempt:
    (I) not loaded; and
    (II) in a locked container, or a locked firearms rack that is on a motor vehicle;
    This is language is consistent with the FOPA regarding interstate transportation.
    Last edited by xc9subcompact; 04-26-2011 at 04:50 PM.

  11. #11
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,924
    Quote Originally Posted by xc9subcompact View Post
    You are correct. A MO issued permit makes the GFSZ act irrelevant to you.

    There is some belief that any permit that is authorized by the state (reciprocity, recognition) is also meeting the requirement.
    There are those that will argue that it does not.
    4. Subdivisions (1), (8), and (10) of subsection 1 of this section shall not apply to any person who has a valid concealed carry endorsement issued pursuant to sections 571.101 to 571.121 or a valid permit or endorsement to carry concealed firearms issued by another state or political subdivision of another state.

    There is no argument to be had, it is spelled out real clear.

  12. #12
    Regular Member xc9subcompact's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Secure Undisclosed
    Posts
    106
    I'm not sure if you are comparing a federal statute's exemption to a state's exemption?

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    st louis
    Posts
    640
    correct me if i am wrong, but being excempt from state level does not make you exmept from federal statue is that correct?

  14. #14
    Regular Member xc9subcompact's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Secure Undisclosed
    Posts
    106
    Just because the state couldn't care less about guns doesn't means the feds can't come after you if you don't have a permit in regards to any federal law.
    Last edited by xc9subcompact; 04-26-2011 at 05:46 PM.

  15. #15
    Regular Member cshoff's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    , Missouri, USA
    Posts
    687
    Quote Originally Posted by LMTD View Post
    4. Subdivisions (1), (8), and (10) of subsection 1 of this section shall not apply to any person who has a valid concealed carry endorsement issued pursuant to sections 571.101 to 571.121 or a valid permit or endorsement to carry concealed firearms issued by another state or political subdivision of another state.

    There is no argument to be had, it is spelled out real clear.
    But it isn't so clear because the Federal Code specifically spells out that the "individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located". I don't think a compelling legal argument could be made that Florida CCW permit, for example, qualifies as being "licensed by the state" of Missouri, whether Missouri recognizes said permit or not. It would be the same thing as a driver operating a motor vehicle in Missouri on a Illinois drivers license; there is no question that Missouri recognizes the license, but there is also no question that said recognition in no way implies an act of licensing by Missouri. To my knowledge, every conviction that has been made and subsequently overturned under this law involved a person who was issued a license by his state of residence.

  16. #16
    Regular Member xc9subcompact's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Secure Undisclosed
    Posts
    106
    The argument that ANY firearm permit issued by ANY state is good enough to exempt a person from the GFSZ act is based on a couple of things.

    Here is the subject part of the GFSZ act:

    "(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;"

    What some argue is that when a state passes a law that either recognizes another state or local permit or allows the "law enforcement authorities" to enter into an agreement with another state, they are issuing a "license" to that individual to possess a friearm in the state.
    Key here is the term "license".
    It does not mean it needs to be a document issued by the state. The state can issue a blanket "license" if it desires.
    Since the state requires the individual possess a permit from another state or local jusrisdiction in order to be covered under the "license", this ensures that the individual has, in fact, been determined to be qualified under law to possess a firearm.

    Another point that is argued is that from the federal perspective, they have a constitutional burden to give equal protection to all.
    If an individual has been checked out and found to be qualified under law to receive a PA permit, they are under this statute, absolutely exempt from the GFSZ act.
    In order to provide that individual with equal protection, they would have to be exempt in MO, even with a PA permit since the individual was in fact determined to be allowed to have a firearm.
    While the state of MO could deny someone from PA the right to be near a MO school with a gun, while allowing a MO person with a gun to be there, the federal government can't do that - due to the US Constitution's 14th amendment.

    Another point is that while one state may require a more extensive background check than another, the federal statute doesn't specify what the check must consist of.
    The only reasonable check as far as the federal government is concerned would have to be the same information used for a NICS check. Since every place that issues permits in the USA does at least this minimal check, MO's recognition law is consistent with this.
    Last edited by xc9subcompact; 04-26-2011 at 06:33 PM.

  17. #17
    Regular Member xc9subcompact's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Secure Undisclosed
    Posts
    106
    Quote Originally Posted by cshoff View Post
    To my knowledge, every conviction that has been made and subsequently overturned under this law involved a person who was issued a license by his state of residence.
    I would like to know which cases there are since Lopez v USA. I can't find any. I think the GFSZ act II is a grand bluff since 1996.

  18. #18
    Regular Member cshoff's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    , Missouri, USA
    Posts
    687
    Quote Originally Posted by xc9subcompact View Post
    The argument that ANY firearm permit issued by ANY state is good enough to exempt a person from the GFSZ act is based on a couple of things.

    Here is the subject part of the GFSZ act:

    "(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;"

    What some argue is that when a state passes a law that either recognizes another state or local permit or allows the "law enforcement authorities" to enter into an agreement with another state, they are issuing a "license" to that individual to possess a friearm in the state.
    Key here is the term "license".
    It does not mean it needs to be a document issued by the state. The state can issue a blanket "license" if it desires.
    Since the state requires the individual possess a permit from another state or local jusrisdiction in order to be covered under the "license", this ensures that the individual has, in fact, been determined to be qualified under law to possess a firearm.

    Another point that is argued is that from the federal perspective, they have a constitutional burden to give equal protection to all.
    If an individual has been checked out and found to be qualified under law to receive a PA permit, they are under this statute, absolutely exempt from the GFSZ act.
    In order to provide that individual with equal protection, they would have to be exempt in MO, even with a PA permit since the individual was in fact determined to be allowed to have a firearm.
    While the state of MO could deny someone from PA the right to be near a MO school with a gun, while allowing a MO person with a gun to be there, the federal government can't do that - due to the US Constitution's 14th amendment.

    Another point is that while one state may require a more extensive background check than another, the federal statute doesn't specify what the check must consist of.
    The only reasonable check as far as the federal government is concerned would have to be the same information used for a NICS check. Since every place that issues permits in the USA does at least this minimal check, MO's recognition law is consistent with this.
    A couple of things. One, Federal Code requires that, ....."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"...... Since there is absolutely no such verification that takes place by the State of Missouri for someone who has been issued a non-resident permit, it makes any non-resident permit inadequate as far as satisfying the Federal exemption requirements.

    Secondly, I've never heard of any kind of incorporation that applies to concealed carry permits. In fact, states that issue are free to either reciprocate or not with any other state that issues. Under incorporation, they would have no choice but to recognize ALL permits. No such "equal protection" exists.

    Quote Originally Posted by xc9subcompact View Post
    I would like to know which cases there are since Lopez v USA. I can't find any. I think the GFSZ act II is a grand bluff since 1996.
    US v. Tait is the one that I can think of off the top of my head. I will have to check through my archives for others: http://openjurist.org/202/f3d/1320/united-states-v-tait

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    st louis
    Posts
    640
    hmm..i guess since i carry a utah, my only option concerning federal is peaceful journey? i may or may not drive by 3 schools every day.

  20. #20
    Regular Member xc9subcompact's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Secure Undisclosed
    Posts
    106
    Quote Originally Posted by cshoff View Post
    A couple of things. One, Federal Code requires that, ....."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"...... Since there is absolutely no such verification that takes place by the State of Missouri for someone who has been issued a non-resident permit, it makes any non-resident permit inadequate as far as satisfying the Federal exemption requirements.

    Secondly, I've never heard of any kind of incorporation that applies to concealed carry permits. In fact, states that issue are free to either reciprocate or not with any other state that issues. Under incorporation, they would have no choice but to recognize ALL permits. No such "equal protection" exists.



    US v. Tait is the one that I can think of off the top of my head. I will have to check through my archives for others: http://openjurist.org/202/f3d/1320/united-states-v-tait
    OK, thanks.
    That one was also a ex-felon with a gun. I guess they were throwing the book at him.
    A case where the rights restoration wasn't recognized by the feds. I guess they were wrong on that one. I have no doubt that the feds would argue the GFSZ act is constitutional. I just don't think this would survive a SCOTUS review, if it ever made it there.

    The part about the locals doing their own background check as opposed to relying on the issuing jusrisdiction is part of the argument is what I was relating.

    "The government first argues that Alabama licenses never qualify for the exception in 922(q)(2)(B)(ii) because Alabama does not require its licensing agents to conduct background checks on firearms license applicants. The 922(q)(2)(B)(ii) exception only applies if "... the law of the State ... requires that ... [the sheriff] verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license." 18 U.S.C. 922(q)(2)(B)(ii). By its basic terms, the statute merely requires that the Alabama sheriff ensured that Tait was qualified under Alabama law to receive the license. While the Alabama law is extremely lenient, it is nonetheless the only pertinent law. Alabama has chosen its laws, and these are the laws which determine whether the federal statute's exception applies. See Caron v. United States, 524 U.S. 308, 118 S.Ct. at 2011-12, 141 L.Ed.2d 303.6 Alabama is free to set forth its own licensing requirements, and Congress chose to defer to those licensing requirements when it established "qualified under law" as its criterion for the exception to the Gun-Free School Zone Act. Therefore the government's first argument with respect to 922(q)(2)(B)(ii) is rejected."

    There is nothing that says a state cannot rely on whatever standards they desire to ensure the individual is allowed possession. The statute does not specify HOW the verification is to take place. Amibiguous laws are invalid laws.

    This is a 14th amendment argument since there is no reason for the feds to demand the local law enforcement personally do the check. The only reasoning for this limitation is to attempt to restrict an individuals 2nd amendment rights.

  21. #21
    Regular Member xc9subcompact's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Secure Undisclosed
    Posts
    106
    Quote Originally Posted by kylemoul View Post
    hmm..i guess since i carry a utah, my only option concerning federal is peaceful journey? i may or may not drive by 3 schools every day.
    (25) The term “school zone” means—
    (A) in, or on the grounds of, a public, parochial or private school; or
    (B) within a distance of 1,000 feet from the grounds of a public, parochial or private school.
    (26) The term “school” means a school which provides elementary or secondary education, as determined under State law.

    They are everywhere. Have you ever seen one of those school zone maps? I remmber one of New Orleans from before Katrina. You couldn't have passed through legally.

  22. #22
    Regular Member cshoff's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    , Missouri, USA
    Posts
    687
    Quote Originally Posted by xc9subcompact View Post
    OK, thanks.
    That one was also a ex-felon with a gun. I guess they were throwing the book at him.
    A case where the rights restoration wasn't recognized by the feds. I guess they were wrong on that one. I have no doubt that the feds would argue the GFSZ act is constitutional. I just don't think this would survive a SCOTUS review, if it ever made it there.

    The part about the locals doing their own background check as opposed to relying on the issuing jusrisdiction is part of the argument is what I was relating.

    "The government first argues that Alabama licenses never qualify for the exception in 922(q)(2)(B)(ii) because Alabama does not require its licensing agents to conduct background checks on firearms license applicants. The 922(q)(2)(B)(ii) exception only applies if "... the law of the State ... requires that ... [the sheriff] verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license." 18 U.S.C. 922(q)(2)(B)(ii). By its basic terms, the statute merely requires that the Alabama sheriff ensured that Tait was qualified under Alabama law to receive the license. While the Alabama law is extremely lenient, it is nonetheless the only pertinent law. Alabama has chosen its laws, and these are the laws which determine whether the federal statute's exception applies. See Caron v. United States, 524 U.S. 308, 118 S.Ct. at 2011-12, 141 L.Ed.2d 303.6 Alabama is free to set forth its own licensing requirements, and Congress chose to defer to those licensing requirements when it established "qualified under law" as its criterion for the exception to the Gun-Free School Zone Act. Therefore the government's first argument with respect to 922(q)(2)(B)(ii) is rejected."

    There is nothing that says a state cannot rely on whatever standards they desire to ensure the individual is allowed possession. The statute does not specify HOW the verification is to take place. Amibiguous laws are invalid laws.
    True, except NO verification whatsoever takes place here in Missouri. None. The state has no idea who has a non-resident permit and what checks were or were not performed in obtaining that permit. Personally, I wouldn't want to be the test case for an arrest under this statute here in Missouri.

    This is a 14th amendment argument since there is no reason for the feds to demand the local law enforcement personally do the check. The only reasoning for this limitation is to attempt to restrict an individuals 2nd amendment rights.
    Unless you ignore the fact that states all pick and choose which OOS permits they will or won't recognize, then I don't really see how you have a valid 14th Amendment argument. There is no guarantee of equal protection when it comes to CCW permits. If State A decides it won't recognize a permit issued by State B, then a person with a State B permit is SOL in State A.

  23. #23
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,924
    So because I live within 1000 feet of a school, likely less than 300 from the edge of the property, the simple act of walking to my car in possession of a loaded firearm would put me in violation unless I specifically had a Missouri permit?

    I THOUGHT they actually FIXED the stupidity that was the SGFZ as it was pretty much made clear that it was literally impossible to comply at all in more than a few metro area's!

    Selective enforcement I suppose.

  24. #24
    Regular Member cshoff's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    , Missouri, USA
    Posts
    687
    Quote Originally Posted by LMTD View Post
    So because I live within 1000 feet of a school, likely less than 300 from the edge of the property, the simple act of walking to my car in possession of a loaded firearm would put me in violation unless I specifically had a Missouri permit?

    I THOUGHT they actually FIXED the stupidity that was the SGFZ as it was pretty much made clear that it was literally impossible to comply at all in more than a few metro area's!

    Selective enforcement I suppose.
    Yep, it's a cluster, for sure. Here are all of the exceptions:

    (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.
    You are okay while you are on your property. Presumably, once you step into the street, you are no longer okay (unless you meet one of the other exceptions). Typical of the kind of nonsense that comes out of our Congress.

  25. #25
    Regular Member xc9subcompact's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Secure Undisclosed
    Posts
    106
    Quote Originally Posted by cshoff View Post
    True, except NO verification whatsoever takes place here in Missouri. None. The state has no idea who has a non-resident permit and what checks were or were not performed in obtaining that permit. Personally, I wouldn't want to be the test case for an arrest under this statute here in Missouri.



    Unless you ignore the fact that states all pick and choose which OOS permits they will or won't recognize, then I don't really see how you have a valid 14th Amendment argument. There is no guarantee of equal protection when it comes to CCW permits. If State A decides it won't recognize a permit issued by State B, then a person with a State B permit is SOL in State A.
    My point is the state is making the decision, not the federal government. That does not violate the 14th amendment. The feds must apply a standard equally. If you are a nice enough person to carry a gun in PA, then in the eyes of the feds, you should be nice enough when you are in MO. When they don't apply the standard equally, any law they write is constitutionally flawed.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •