Someone remind me about "school zones"

kylemoul said:

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.

Click to expand...

(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.

xc9subcompact said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

LMTD said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

cshoff said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

xc9subcompact said:

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.

Click to expand...

And I would agree with that. However, as long as the standard is, ....."licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located"..... in both PA and MO, then it IS consistent. IMO, the entire law, in and of itself, is Constitutionally "flawed", but that's a topic for a different thread.

cshoff and xd9 - thanks for taking me to school this is one helluva informative debate.

does anyone know the peanlty of violating USC § 922. Unlawful acts ?

a person i know who has an out of state permit may or may not drive by 3 different schools on the way to work. i can assume that would be in violation?

Driving should be covered by peaceable journey, No?

So, I, having a Florida permit, should not be within a 1000 feet of a school?

Considering MO recognizes the FL permit and when you are in a state that recognizes your permit, you follow the states laws considering CCW and you gain the same exemptions a MO CCW would provide, shouldn't I be ok with the whole school thing?

great... apparently i have to walk around with a 1000' tape measure now.

Big Boy said:

Driving should be covered by peaceable journey, No?

So, I, having a Florida permit, should not be within a 1000 feet of a school?

Considering MO recognizes the FL permit and when you are in a state that recognizes your permit, you follow the states laws considering CCW and you gain the same exemptions a MO CCW would provide, shouldn't I be ok with the whole school thing?

Click to expand...

You would be okay with state laws, but you would be violating federal law 922(q) unless the gun was unloaded/in a locked case/disassembled. The chances of the FBI, ATF, DEA, randomly pulling you over and charging you de nova with 922(q) violations are slim, you have little to concern yourself with. But to completely disregard it all together isn't a great idea either.

A list of cases since Lopez;
United States v Danks
United States v Tait
United States v Haywood
United States v Smith
United States v Dorsey
United States v Nieves-Castaño
United States v Weekes
United States v Benally
United States v Cruz-Rodriguez

Shooter64738 said:

<snip>.....
A list of cases since Lopez;
United States v Danks
United States v Tait
United States v Haywood
United States v Smith
United States v Dorsey
United States v Nieves-Castaño
United States v Weekes
United States v Benally
United States v Cruz-Rodriguez

Click to expand...

I was hoping you would chime in. I knew you had a pretty comprehensive list of these cases.

And here is what they were doing that prompted the charges:

United States v Danks Shot at a car, plead guilty.
United States v Tait Held a gun to a person. AL permit holder. GFSZ charge did not survive appeal.
United States v Haywood Robbery w/gun GFSZ charge did not hold up on appeal and there was discussion by the court that there wasn't clear evidence the xchool zone was marked in order for the defendant to know he was in a GFSZ
United States v Smith Felon w/Gun, shot someone
United States v Dorsey Cocaine, trespass on school grounds
United States v Nieves-Castaño Machine Gun
United States v Weekes Discharge of a firearm
United States v Benally Assault Police Officer
United States v Cruz-Rodriguez Cocaine

None of them had a OOS permit. In each case, they either didn't have a permit or they had a Alabama permit which the USA thinks shouldn't count as they think AL is too lax on issuance. On that point the feds lose.

Moral of the story is don't commit crimes, especially in the school zone.:lol:

United States v Nieves-Castaño Machine Gun

the first thing that popped into my head was scarface...dont know why.


so if a county cop pulls me over he has no authority to charge me with violating that act? only a federal entity can?

xc9subcompact said:

Moral of the story is don't commit crimes, especially in the school zone.:lol:

Click to expand...

The problem isn't committing crimes, it is having an adder like that used when your not committing a crime.

We saw this with the Darrow case, they could not charge him with anything since he did not do anything so they switched it up to possession of a fire arm while warrants were active.


I could see them using this if a person were OC'ing when they found out they had nothing else to use, I can see that REAL easy.

xc9subcompact said:

Moral of the story is don't commit crimes, especially in the school zone.:lol:

Click to expand...

I believe there is an addition that could be made to the "moral". In a school zone, expect that some officers will probably over-react and/or over-reach when it comes to firearms. Whether they are right or wrong is irrelevant to the fact that it will absolutely ruin your day and could cost plenty to defend yourself from.

xc9subcompact said:

And here is what they were doing that prompted the charges:

United States v Danks Shot at a car, plead guilty.
United States v Tait Held a gun to a person. AL permit holder. GFSZ charge did not survive appeal.
United States v Haywood Robbery w/gun GFSZ charge did not hold up on appeal and there was discussion by the court that there wasn't clear evidence the xchool zone was marked in order for the defendant to know he was in a GFSZ
United States v Smith Felon w/Gun, shot someone
United States v Dorsey Cocaine, trespass on school grounds
United States v Nieves-Castaño Machine Gun
United States v Weekes Discharge of a firearm
United States v Benally Assault Police Officer
United States v Cruz-Rodriguez Cocaine

None of them had a OOS permit. In each case, they either didn't have a permit or they had a Alabama permit which the USA thinks shouldn't count as they think AL is too lax on issuance. On that point the feds lose.

Moral of the story is don't commit crimes, especially in the school zone.:lol:

Click to expand...

While that's always good advice, you can learn a great deal more if you study the cases.

For example in United States v Nieves-Castaño, you found the machine gun portion. But she wasn't convicted of possession of a machine gun. She was convicted for having a firearm ~900 feet within a school zone.
The details;
The government could not prove the person KNEW it was a machine gun. She was not convicted of that, she was convicted of having a firearm in a school zone without a permit.
Which backs up the assumption that if you open carry in a school zone without a permit, you're likely to get nailed if noticed, and the charges will hold up all the way to the supreme court. And they will literally measure from the point you are standing to the edge of the school zone.

United States V Tait was a good case because Alabama has similar laws to Missouri, and although Tait was a felon long before the incident occurred, he still had a permit. His civil rights were fully restored, so in the eyes of the court he may as well have a been a boy scout who held a permit, and went onto school property with a firearm.

922(q) as written requires the state police agency in which the permit is issued to conduct a background check AND that the school zone be located within the same state as the issued permit. The federal law left that background check criteria in the hands of the state, but they did not leave the requirement of the permit and the school both holding in the same state. Therefore, a permit from another state will not exempt a person from 922(q) even if that state recognizes the permit through reciprocity.

Shooter64738 said:

922(q) as written requires the state police agency in which the permit is issued to conduct a background check

Click to expand...

Actually:

the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license;


Not required that the state police do it. The local yokels can do it.

Also on each of these cited cases, the primary charge was not thr GFSZ act. They threw that one in for good measure.
The machine gun lady's case puzzles me since it sounded like she was storing it at home in the apartment. How did that not get exempted from GFSZ?
We don't have a test case for GFSZ with an OOS permit.

xc9subcompact said:

Actually:

the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license;

Not required that the state police do it. The local yokels can do it.

Click to expand...

True, and l I did put it in laymans terms, but for Missouri it is the state police that run the backgrond check. The local police agencies are not allowed to run a check on your criminal history without probable cause or reasonable suspicion. That is why ccw holders write 2 checks. One for the local sheriff, and one for the state police to run your criminal history check. In Alabama however (US v. Tait) the local sheriff did run the background check, which was one of the reasons they still thought they could get Tait on the 922(q) violation. The background check under Alabama law is not explicit, but implied. The court disagreed on both parts.

Also on each of these cited cases, the primary charge was not thr GFSZ act. They threw that one in for good measure.
The machine gun lady's case puzzles me since it sounded like she was storing it at home in the apartment. How did that not get exempted from GFSZ?

Click to expand...

She lived in public housing, on public property. Without having a permit, she had no exemptions, such as living on private property, firearm disassembled, etc.. And they apparently pulled out a tape measure. I think it was 672 feet, I'll have to go find it in the case.

We don't have a test case for GFSZ with an OOS permit.

Click to expand...

Nope we don't but thats probably because as you said, its usually not a primary charge. It may be the only charge in some of these cases (Tait and Neves) but only because they went down the list, and that was the only things they thought would stick.

Everytime I go over this, I emphasise that the feds are not lurking around every corner waiting to bust joe public when he steps out of his car with a firearm. I think it's good to be aware of, and good to know the limits of it. But there is not a need to look over our shoulders on a daily basis to see if the FBI is tailing you.

Shooter64738 said:

Everytime I go over this, I emphasise that the feds are not lurking around every corner waiting to bust joe public when he steps out of his car with a firearm. I think it's good to be aware of, and good to know the limits of it. But there is not a need to look over our shoulders on a daily basis to see if the FBI is tailing you.

Click to expand...

Uhm, I will have to disagree with this just a little bit. No I do not think the FBI is following folks around waiting to pounce, however, I offer that if the Maplewood Walmart location had been within 1000 feet of a school, they would have hit Darrow with it since they were so desperately searching for ANYTHING to hit him with to pretty much no avail.

Considering the implications that are derived from it, a federal felony will eliminate your gun rights, I would recommend that folks opting to open carry pay VERY close attention to this as it will cost a LOT to defend and it very well might stick in a hard way.