• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

I am Confused.

Grizz272

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2008
Messages
86
Location
Frozen Tundra, , USA
I went to the NRA meeting at Cabela's last night. I got the impression that the reason the NRA likes the permit system is because the Federal Gun Free School Zone law says that only licensed conceal carry is allowed in the GFSZ. The Constitutional Carry Law proposed would not be acceptable to the FEDS because there is no permit. I also thought that the Constitutional carry bill would eliminate the 1000 foot rule like the Licensed bill does but the NRA guy said no. So what is going on with the GFSZ in the two or 3 bills out there now?
 

protias

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
7,308
Location
SE, WI
Both bills take the WI GFSZ down to the property line. The first federal GFSZ was found unconstitutional but was passed again, somehow, when they added interstate commerce (not sure how that applies at all). So if someone was charged with the federal GFSZ, I'm sure it would be found unconstitutional. MT has language in their carry law that says anyone who is able to carry, is considered "licensed" by the state (sorry, I do not have the statute available).
 

paul@paul-fisher.com

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
4,049
Location
Chandler, AZ
the NRA likes the permit system because NRA trainers will make a lot of $$$$ money training the masses, the NRA does nothing unless their is something in it for them on the backside. a self serving agenda

Glock, so far, none of the bills that have actually been introduced have ANY training component. The NRA reps last night ALL said that as far as they are concerned, any training requirement is a non-starter.
 
M

McX

Guest
will the sidewalk bordering the school be considered public or school property?
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
will the sidewalk bordering the school be considered public or school property?

That is an interesting technical question, the answer to which is going to be likely founded in real estate law. Whether the sidewalk is school property with an easement or municipal property/right of way will have much bearing. Arguments abound on both sides - have never seen a court of record cite that clarified this.
 

Captain Nemo

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2010
Messages
1,029
Location
Somewhere, Wisconsin, USA
As I understand it a concealed weapon permit does not automatically exempt the federal GFSZ law. The state must acknowledge in the concealed weapon statute that the permit complies with the federal license requirement.

The originaal federal GFSZ law(1990) was found unconstitutional by SCOTUS in U.S. v Lopez. It was found to be in violation of the interstate commerce clause contained in the U.S. Constitution. Subsequently congress got out their magic pencils and weasle worded and enacted a new version of the GFSZ law. It is essentially the same as the old version but with some creative editorializing. Most experts expect that if the new version gets before SCOTUS it too will be found unconstitutional. I presume that is why we haven't seen any federal prosecution of the law in recent years. In fact I don't recall that the fact that the GFSZ law was violated was mentioned in any of the recent school shootings, by either the media or politicians. You would think beause it carries with it the serious charge of a felony that it would have been mentioned. The politicians and justice department appear to want to keep it as far away from the court systems as possible.

MY opinions
 

Grizz272

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2008
Messages
86
Location
Frozen Tundra, , USA
Thanks for the clarification on the GFSZ. I am disappointed in the misinformation the NRA is saying about the constitutional carry bill though.
 

apjonas

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2006
Messages
1,157
Location
, ,
It Sounds Like the NRA Guy Had It Exactly Right

Thanks for the clarification on the GFSZ. I am disappointed in the misinformation the NRA is saying about the constitutional carry bill though.

Nothing in state law (any proposal) can alter the content of the federal law. While it is proposed to reduce the state GFSZ from 1000' out to just the school grounds, the federal GFSZ would still be 1000" - one advantage of a qualified permit is exemption from the federal law. The MT method is a case of "nice try" - the federal has fairly clear requirements. Writing a state law that pretends to comply is an exercise in futility. The only answer is to change the federal GFSZ or hope SCOTUS dropkicks it again.
 

Teej

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2008
Messages
522
Location
, Wisconsin, USA
Both bills take the WI GFSZ down to the property line. The first federal GFSZ was found unconstitutional but was passed again, somehow, when they added interstate commerce (not sure how that applies at all).

Lopez successfully argued that the original act was too broad - the gov't couldn't claim authority like that. The updated version threw it under the realm of the Commerce clause where the feds can do almost anything they want.
 
Top