Riding a Bike through a school zone while Carrying

ProShooter said:

Well, I have seen people get DUI's while on a bicycle...

Click to expand...

I know that it is illegal to ride a bike and wear headphones on a public street.

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+46.2-1078

And bicycles are specifically mentioned in several other sections under Title 46.2 of the state code.

Bicycles operated on public streets are considered "motor vehicles" for the purpose of enforcement as they are required to honour and obey traffic signs, signals and yes, even speed limits.

roscoe13 said:

If you've got an out of state CHP, but no VA CHP, you could still be charged under the federal GFSZA for carrying w/in 1000' of a school, even if the out of state CHP is recognized by VA.

Click to expand...

But you are not going to be charged with a FEDERAL CRIME by local law enforcement. I think that's the point which YOU are missing.

roscoe13 said:

No, it doesn't. You missed my point. Nova said that if you have a CHP you're exempt from the 1000' rule of the federal GFSZA. I was pointing out that a: the CHP must be issued in the state in which the school zone exists, and b: the state that issued the CHP must perform background checks as part of the CHP process. If you've got an out of state CHP, but no VA CHP, you could still be charged under the federal GFSZA for carrying w/in 1000' of a school, even if the out of state CHP is recognized by VA.

Roscoe

Click to expand...

With all due respect, there are those (myself included) who do not believe that this would necessarily hold up in court. (Your literal interpretation of the CHP part of the law.)

A license to carry concealed is a non-tangible status of being. The fact that Virginia does recognize an out-of-state issued license, does in fact mean that Virginia also "licenses" you to carry concealed, but based on the efforts of another state to ensure you are qualified to do so. (Virginia is the ONLY government who is able to license you to carry concealed "in Virginia". It's Virginia's law that you are working with, the license must come from Virginia.)

The next point is a little stickier, but I believe would also pass muster, if Virginia chooses to recognize only out-of-state licenses from states that require similar background checks, then this should also meet the requirement as well. Who runs the background check should not matter, only that the requirement to grant the license is predicated upon a successful background check of equal scope.

As we all say, it's never been tried in court, and nobody would want to be the test case, but I know User has chimed in support on at least a part of this legal theory, and I think it could stand a decent chance, especially given the fact that nobody seriously thinks the GFSZA will pass Constitutional muster anyway, despite the "corrections" they made to it after it failed the first time.

JMHO, and IANAL...

TFred

TFred said:

With all due respect, there are those (myself included) who do not believe that this would necessarily hold up in court. (Your literal interpretation of the CHP part of the law.)

A license to carry concealed is a non-tangible status of being. The fact that Virginia does recognize an out-of-state issued license, does in fact mean that Virginia also "licenses" you to carry concealed, but based on the efforts of another state to ensure you are qualified to do so. (Virginia is the ONLY government who is able to license you to carry concealed "in Virginia". It's Virginia's law that you are working with, the license must come from Virginia.)

The next point is a little stickier, but I believe would also pass muster, if Virginia chooses to recognize only out-of-state licenses from states that require similar background checks, then this should also meet the requirement as well. Who runs the background check should not matter, only that the requirement to grant the license is predicated upon a successful background check of equal scope.

As we all say, it's never been tried in court, and nobody would want to be the test case, but I know User has chimed in support on at least a part of this legal theory, and I think it could stand a decent chance, especially given the fact that nobody seriously thinks the GFSZA will pass Constitutional muster anyway, despite the "corrections" they made to it after it failed the first time.

JMHO, and IANAL...

TFred

Click to expand...

If you want to be the test case, that's fine. I sure wouldn't. Also, see: http://www.handgunlaw.us/documents/batf_school_zone.pdf

wylde007 said:

.But you are not going to be charged with a FEDERAL CRIME by local law enforcement. I think that's the point which YOU are missing.

Click to expand...

Yeah, and there's a zero chance, that if local law enforcement picks you up for something else, and you're carrying, that they'll call the feds and let them know.

I think I just saw an ostrich...

Roscoe

roscoe13 said:

Yeah, and there's a zero chance, that if local law enforcement picks you up for something else, and you're carrying, that they'll call the feds and let them know.

Click to expand...

Because that's all local cops think about is rattling someone for carry in a school zone and then enjoying the company of a federal investigation in their jurisdiction.

Local cops hate the feds almost as much as we do.

roscoe13 said:

If you want to be the test case, that's fine. I sure wouldn't. Also, see: http://www.handgunlaw.us/documents/batf_school_zone.pdf

Click to expand...

Read that many times. Difference is that my analysis was conducted by someone who thinks, and not someone who wants to restrict the rights of law-abiding American Citizens. I consider his interpretation to be just as much of a stretch as mine.

Only a judge, and ultimately the SCOTUS would be able to definitively interpret what this law truly means.

TFred

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun-Free_School_Zones_Act_of_1990

Text of the lawTitle 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;

(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.


(3) (A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), it shall be unlawful for any person, knowingly or with reckless disregard for the safety of another, to discharge or attempt to discharge a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the person knows is a school zone. (B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the discharge of a firearm—

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

(ii) as part of a program approved by a school in the school zone, by an individual who is participating in the program;

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

(iv) by a law enforcement officer acting in his or her official capacity.

(4) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as preempting or preventing a State or local government from enacting a statute establishing gun free school zones as provided in this subsection.

Click to expand...

NOT A LAWYER.....

Also wouldn't ~(iii) that is— (I) not loaded; and (II) in a locked container, or a locked firearms rack that is on a motor vehicle;~ mean that any UPS/FEDEX/DHL/USPS driver would break this law? because when you deliver a gun to front door (C&R) or to a gun shop, guns are NOT LOCKED. They are "taped" in a box. When I orderd a gun to my local gun shop it came in it's orginal box and wasn't "locked up" So we could technial and charge all delivery men with this? Also sending a gun in for repair, the gun isn't "locked" its just taped shut..

This law is poorly writen, needs to be reworded TO ANY"CRIMINAL" IN A SCHOOL ZONE. Not any good guy.


This is the loop hole I can't understand. You can live right across from the school and have a gun in your house/yard. Whats the difference than someone on a bike? You could sit on your front porch with a loaded gun and look outside, within "1000" feet.

2a4all said:

In a former life, I served in the US Coast Guard Auxiliary, and IIRC, USCG considers all watercraft as vessels. I did many a safety patrol using my 27' vessel.

Click to expand...

Does this mean I should tow a boat behind my bicycle?

I have attached an old opinion from an employee of BATFE as it relates to the validity of an out of state CHP when a person with the OOS CHP is in a school zone. The person who signed this seems to be a BATFE official, not a employee of the DOJ nor a judge, so it's legal weight and even validity seems questionable to me.

Seems like a BATFE paper pusher AFAIK.

swinokur said:

I have attached an old opinion from an employee of BATFE as it relates to the validity of an out of state CHP when a person with the OOS CHP is in a school zone. The person who signed this seems to be a BATFE official, not a employee of the DOJ nor a judge, so it's legal weight and even validity seems questionable to me.

Seems like a BATFE paper pusher AFAIK.

Click to expand...

Probably the same opinion posted earlier here in Post #24. I've already shared my opinion on that.

TFred

It didn't attach but you are correct, same one. IMO a civilian in the BATFE may not even have the force of law behind his opinion. Policies and laws being 2 different animals IMO.

2a4all said:

rob99vmi04, it won't matter how well versed you are in the niceties of the Federal GFZ law while you are being detained by a LEO near the school. Mostly because s/he may not be so well-versed. Being on a bicycle isn't really much different than being afoot (yes, I know that traffic rules apply). If you have a CHP, you're exempt (as along as you're not actually on school property), but you'll need to be certain where the property line is, and the LEO may not actually know. It's also possible that the local LEOs don't have the authority to enforce the Federal GFZ. ...

Click to expand...

I've got the test case, right now, in Prince William Co. - the only possible basis for a conviction would be that the container was not locked. I've done extensive research on the use of the word, "secured" in the code, particularly within 18.2-308, itself, as well as case law and I'm convinced that the term, "locked", is a more specific term included within the definition of "secured", but that "locked" is a pretty small subset.

There are three ways in which the term is used in cases. The first refers by analogy to situations where a person's right to collect is "secured" by an interest in tangible property (e.g., real estate loan secured by a deed of trust, promissory note secured by a lien on a vehicle). The second usage refers to situations in which someone obtains something, whether physical or abstract (e.g., "the rights secured by the first amendment apply to the states", and "having secured her firearm, she went to the kitchen to intercept the burglar"). Finally, it means what everyone assumed it means: keeping a physical article from flopping around loose. A gate was secured, in one case, by looping a length of rope around the top of it. A dog was secured by a leash. Cattle were secured by enclosure within a fenced field. There is no case, anywhere, in which "secured" was taken as a direct synonym with "locked". In every instance in which both terms are used, "locked" is one way of securing something, but not the only way.

I think what's really going on here is a concerted campaign by some people to force that statute to mean something clearly not intended by the legislature or the governor.

Btw, the defendant had his Glock 22 inside the original and closed Glock bag, which was itself enclosed within his closed backpack, which was on the back seat in his truck.

user said:

I've got the test case, right now, in Prince William Co. - the only possible basis for a conviction would be that the container was not locked. I've done extensive research on the use of the word, "secured" in the code, particularly within 18.2-308, itself, as well as case law and I'm convinced that the term, "locked", is a more specific term included within the definition of "secured", but that "locked" is a pretty small subset.

There are three ways in which the term is used in cases. The first refers by analogy to situations where a person's right to collect is "secured" by an interest in tangible property (e.g., real estate loan secured by a deed of trust, promissory note secured by a lien on a vehicle). The second usage refers to situations in which someone obtains something, whether physical or abstract (e.g., "the rights secured by the first amendment apply to the states", and "having secured her firearm, she went to the kitchen to intercept the burglar"). Finally, it means what everyone assumed it means: keeping a physical article from flopping around loose. A gate was secured, in one case, by looping a length of rope around the top of it. A dog was secured by a leash. Cattle were secured by enclosure within a fenced field. There is no case, anywhere, in which "secured" was taken as a direct synonym with "locked". In every instance in which both terms are used, "locked" is one way of securing something, but not the only way.

I think what's really going on here is a concerted campaign by some people to force that statute to mean something clearly not intended by the legislature or the governor.

Btw, the defendant had his Glock 22 inside the original and closed Glock bag, which was itself enclosed within his closed backpack, which was on the back seat in his truck.

Click to expand...

It figures it would be either PW or Fairfax. I really want to give them to Mary Land. Maybe I could pay Md to take them:lol:

peter nap said:

It figures it would be either PW or Fairfax. I really want to give them to Mary Land. Maybe I could pay Md to take them:lol:

Click to expand...

They used to sneak in at night, now they brazenly just walk across the border. Some even arrive with all of their worldly possessions with them. Many send part of their Virginia income home to help their families move here too.

We need better border security. :lol:

Before I get flamed for this parody, let me hasten to add that I have nothing against the good people of Maryland. What I am in disfavor of is those that come to our free state and then want to replicate the abominable conditions/laws that they left behind.

In other words learn the language, study our ways and laws and become part of our culture. Be a good citizen and steward of that which has made Virginia such a great place to live.

Grapeshot said:

They used to sneak in at night, now they brazenly just walk across the border. Some even arrive with all of their worldly possessions with them. Many send part of their Virginia income home to help their families move here too.

We need better border security. :lol:

Before I get flamed for this parody, let me hasten to add that I have nothing against the good people of Maryland. What I am in disfavor of is those that come to our free state and then want to replicate the abominable conditions/laws that they left behind.

In other words learn the language, study our ways and laws and become part of our culture. Be a good citizen and steward of that which has made Virginia such a great place to live.

Click to expand...

AND IF THEY DON'T....

user said:

I've got the test case, right now ...

Btw, the defendant had his Glock 22 inside the original and closed Glock bag, which was itself enclosed within his closed backpack, which was on the back seat in his truck.

Click to expand...

Are you saying that this defendant was charged with carrying a concealed weapon after July 1, 2010?

If so, I suspect it would come down to what "container" means, more than "secured". Details are obviously not at hand for me to make a particularly educated contribution.

TFred

TFred said:

Are you saying that this defendant was charged with carrying a concealed weapon after July 1, 2010?

If so, I suspect it would come down to what "container" means, more than "secured". Details are obviously not at hand for me to make a particularly educated contribution.

TFred

Click to expand...

Hopefully User will be able to give some details at some point Tfred, but remember, this happened in PWC. Remember Nitrovic?

That part of the country and I refuse to call it Virginia, grows Cops that interpret the law as they please. I'm actually amazed that it hasn't come up before now.

I'd also be willing to bet that the person voluntarily told an Officer that he had a legally carried firearm in the backpack...which brings me back to Nap's rule number 1....NEVER COOPERATE!

peter nap said:

You may be right Tfred, that's why I said it may. Actually, some bikes do have motors but all have to obey the same rules as motor vehicles. What about scooters. They do have motors.

Lots of gray in that law including what is a vessel. That's generally considered a ship or LARGE boat. Is my 21 foot sailboat a vessel, how about my canoe or my kayak????????

Click to expand...

A sailboat is a vessel. Sometimes a canoe is a vessel, sometimes it is not. All depends

Title 29.1 - GAME, INLAND FISHERIES AND BOATING.

§ 29.1-700. Definitions.
As used in this chapter, unless the context clearly requires a different meaning:
"Motorboat" means any vessel propelled by machinery whether or not the machinery is the principal source of propulsion.
"No wake" means operation of a motorboat at the slowest possible speed required to maintain steerage and headway.
"Operate" means to navigate or otherwise control the movement of a motorboat or a vessel.
"Owner" means a person, other than a lien holder, having the property in or title to a motorboat. The term includes a person entitled to the use or possession of a motorboat subject to an interest in another person, reserved or created by agreement and securing payment of performance of an obligation, but the term excludes a lessee under a lease not intended as security.
"Personal watercraft" means a motorboat less than sixteen feet in length which uses an inboard motor powering a jet pump, as its primary motive power and which is designed to be operated by a person sitting, standing, or kneeling on, rather than in the conventional manner of sitting or standing inside, the vessel.
"Vessel" means every description of watercraft, other than a seaplane on the water, used or capable of being used as a means of transportation on water.
"Waters of the Commonwealth" means any public waters within the territorial limits of the Commonwealth, the adjacent marginal sea and the high seas when navigated as a part of a journey or ride to or from the Virginia shore.
(Code 1960, c. 500, § 62-174.2; 1962, c. 626; 1968, c. 659, § 62.1-167; 1972, c. 412; 1987, c. 488; 1998, cc. 84, 443, 512, 514, 515, 533, 537, 563.)


Canoe would be a vessel as defined above.



§ 29.1-738. Operating boat or manipulating water skis, etc., in reckless manner or while intoxicated, etc.
A. No person shall operate any motorboat or vessel, or manipulate any skis, surfboard, or similar device, or engage in any spearfishing while skin diving or scuba diving in a reckless manner so as to endanger the life, limb, or property of any person.
B. No person shall operate any watercraft, as defined in § 29.1-712, or motorboat which is underway (i) while such person has a blood alcohol concentration at or greater than the blood alcohol concentration at which it is unlawful to drive or operate a motor vehicle as provided in § 18.2-266 as indicated by a chemical test administered in accordance with § 29.1-738.2, (ii) while such person is under the influence of alcohol, (iii) while such person is under the influence of any narcotic drug or any other self-administered intoxicant or drug of whatsoever nature, or any combination of such drugs, to a degree which impairs his ability to operate the watercraft or motorboat safely, (iv) while such person is under the combined influence of alcohol and any drug or drugs to a degree which impairs his ability to operate the watercraft or motorboat safely, or (v) while such person has a blood concentration of any of the following substances at a level that is equal to or greater than: (a) 0.02 milligrams of cocaine per liter of blood, (b) 0.1 milligrams of methamphetamine per liter of blood, (c) 0.01 milligrams of phencyclidine per liter of blood, or (d) 0.1 milligrams of 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine per liter of blood.
C. For purposes of this article, the word "operate" shall include being in actual physical control of a watercraft or motorboat and "underway" shall mean that a vessel is not at anchor, or made fast to the shore, or aground.
Any person who violates any provision of this section shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.
(1960, c. 500, § 62-174.10; 1962, c. 626; 1968, c. 659, § 62.1-176; 1987, c. 488; 1988, c. 176; 1989, c. 726; 1994, c. 587; 1996, cc. 929, 1015; 1997, c. 703; 2005, c. 616.)

§ 29.1-712. Definitions.
As used in this article:
"Dealer" means any watercraft dealer as defined in § 29.1-801.
"Watercraft" means any vessel, other than a seaplane, on the water, propelled by machinery whether or not the machinery is the principal source of propulsion or any sail-powered vessel longer than eighteen feet measured along the centerline. Watercraft which have a valid marine document issued by the United States Coast Guard shall not be included in this definition.
(1981, c. 405, § 62.1-186.1; 1984, c. 418; 1987, c. 488; 1997, c. 877.)

According to the above when operating a vessel while intoxicated, a vessel is defined as a machinery powered or sail powered vessel.

Haven't found anything regarding firearms yet, but I do like to enjoy a beverage or 3 while canoing the Rappahannock between Remington and Motts Run. So far as I know, I could conceal handgun in my zippered water proof US Navy Seal Navsea approved underwater dry bag without a permit as a sealed container in my canoe "vessel" not requiring a CHP and couldoperate my canoe "non vessel" while drinking alcohol in possesion of said handgun and be in compliance of the law.

I said "COULD".

peter nap said:

It figures it would be either PW or Fairfax. I really want to give them to Mary Land. Maybe I could pay Md to take them:lol:

Click to expand...

Hey, hey. There are a whole bunch of us in those two counties who count ourselves as Virginians through and through... not transplants from someplace else where Big Brother is the preferred personal provider. Our allegiance is to Virginia, not Washington DC and for us, it will stay that way.

Grapeshot said:

What I am in disfavor of is those that come to our free state and then want to replicate the abominable conditions/laws that they left behind.

In other words learn the language, study our ways and laws and become part of our culture. Be a good citizen and steward of that which has made Virginia such a great place to live.

Click to expand...

THIS!

I could not have said it better. Thank you.