Here is a map of the Title 18 USC 922(q) Federal Gun Free School Zones in Burlington. Under the Federal Gun Free School Zones Act of 1995, it is a federal felony for any person to travel armed on public sidewalks, roads, or highways that pass within 1000 feet of the property line of any K-12 school, unless they have a carry permit physically issued by the State in which the school is in. Since Vermont does not have CCW permits, residents have no legal remedy. The zones on the map are circular, and are smaller than the actual zones, which are measured from the school's property line. It is an additional felony for an armed citizen or an off-duty police officer to discharge their firearm in a school zone under any circumstances.
Last edited by Eagle2009; 06-05-2011 at 11:38 AM.
Eagle2009 - YOU ARE SO RIGHT! I tried to tell this to the OC posters in Wisconsin who want this so badly and got flamed. I am sure if Corporal Glynn got wind of the GFSZA law and found anyone carrying in a Burlington GFSZA they would be immediately taken to the Federal Magistrate! Be careful what you wish for. Constitutional Carry is a nice thought if you live in the wilds of Wyoming, but not in Burlington. I wish we had a permit option with reciprocity!
So, if I'm heading to Burlington soon, it's almost pointless to carry my firearm lest I be in violation of the GFZA.
Do you have a evidence that they would press charges?Originally Posted by vermonter
Information on Carry in WI
"The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose." - Article 1, Section 25
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." Thomas Jefferson (1776)
I don't think anyone should have to pay for a right...It's already been paid for.
"If you go into a store, with a gun, and rob it, you have forfeited your right to not get shot" - Joe Deters, Hamilton County (Cincinnati) Prosecutor
Whether they would is up to the specific US Attorney. There is enough case law to confidently say they CAN press charges. A truly "law-abiding" gun owner must obey this law, no matter how onerous.
See United States v Dorsey (2005) (This one specifically reviewed the changes made after the law was struck down, and found the changes were sufficient to correct the defects that had caused it to be struck down)
United States v Danks (1999)
United States v Haywood (2002)
United States v Smith (2005)
United States v Nieves Castano (2007)
United States v Weekes (2007)
United States v Benally (2007)
United States v Cruz-Rodrigues (2008)
I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but I was asking for a case in VT.
Information on Carry in WI
"The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose." - Article 1, Section 25
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." Thomas Jefferson (1776)
I don't think anyone should have to pay for a right...It's already been paid for.
"If you go into a store, with a gun, and rob it, you have forfeited your right to not get shot" - Joe Deters, Hamilton County (Cincinnati) Prosecutor
I was not going to do this but I have a little free time at work today.
United States v Dorsey (2005) was convicted of possession of cocaine base with intent to
distribute, possession of a firearm during and in relation to a
drug trafficking offense, and possession of a firearm in a
school zone.
United States v Danks (1999) In April 1998, Danks shot at a car, which was parked within 1,000 feet of an
elementary school.
United States v Haywood (2002) Ira Haywood appeals his
convictions for robbery
United States v Smith (2005) Smith ignored their attempts to stop him, instead leading them on a car chase.
During the chase, Smith intermittently held a gun to his head and drove into oncoming traffic. (Initial investigation was pointing a rifle out of a vehicle)
United States v Nieves Castano (2007) One conviction was for
unlawful possession of a machine gun, see 18 U.S.C. § 922(o), while
the second was for the unlawful possession a firearm in a school
zone,
United States v Weekes (2007) discharging a
firearm in a school zone, possessing a firearm during a crime of violence, and using a
firearm during a crime of violence.
United States v Benally (2007) The three of them went to a remote area and took turns firing the shotgun.
United States v Cruz-Rodrigues (2008) convicted Cruz and Reyes
of conspiring to possess with the intent to distribute cocaine,
crack cocaine, and heroin within 1000 feet of both a school and a
public housing facility.[/QUOTE]
So, which of these is a LAW ABIDING CITIZEN?
So, which of these is a LAW ABIDING CITIZEN?[/QUOTE]
Nice work. The only thing that Eagle has done is post these "maps" in various forums. So I am curious as to why? I sent him a PM and have no response. Take that for what you may....
Live Free or Die!
I posted the maps with the hope that some of you would take the time to contact your Congressional Representatives and let them know how you feel about this law.
In response to your question, none of the people prosecuted in the cases were "law-abiding citizens." The government doesn't prosecute "law-abiding citizens," they prosecute "criminals." If you violate this law, you are no longer a "law-abiding citizen" you are a "criminal" and are subject to government prosecution. If you don't like this, contact your representatives. The cases clearly establish the government's ability to successfully prosecute under this law. This forum exists to promote lawful open carry. No matter how much we wish it otherwise, carry in violation of Federal GFSZA95 is illegal, and should not be encouraged.
Last edited by Eagle2009; 06-22-2011 at 12:47 AM.
So because the government says something is illegal makes it so? Did you know on Virginia Beach it is illegal to swear and is a ticketable offense? So because the government says swearing is illegal makes it so? I don't think so!
Information on Carry in WI
"The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose." - Article 1, Section 25
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." Thomas Jefferson (1776)
I don't think anyone should have to pay for a right...It's already been paid for.
"If you go into a store, with a gun, and rob it, you have forfeited your right to not get shot" - Joe Deters, Hamilton County (Cincinnati) Prosecutor
The US Supreme Court has ruled that the first amendment does not protect someone's absolute right to say anything at anytime. You can be convicted for yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre, and you can also be convicted for having a loaded gun within 1000 feet of a school's property line. You don't have to take my word for it, read this letter from the Chief of the Firearms Division at BATFE telling a permit holder he is subject to federal prosecution under Fed GFSZA95 even though he is in full compliance with State law. I assure you, ATF isn't ignoring this law, and neither should you.
www.handgunlaw.us/documents/batf_school_zone.pdf
Last edited by Eagle2009; 06-22-2011 at 11:28 AM.
No you can not be convicted of yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. This is misquoted so often, you would only be convicted of you FALSELY did so and there was harm caused. The court has since upgraded the Schenck test (1919), the current test that the SCOTUS uses regards the speech must cause "imminent lawless action." (Brandenburg v. Ohio, 1969)
Live Free or Die!
Thank you for citing the court case, I obviously meant falsely yelling fire, as it would be perfectly acceptable in the event of an actual fire.
Still not quite correct. The Schenck case is not the correct case. Brandenburg is the correct and current standard.
You could falsely yell fire in a theater and if it did not cause "imminent lawless action" then you would not be in jeopardy.
Live Free or Die!
Well, I'm glad that our first amendment rights are somewhat protected. I only wish our second amendment rights were defended as diligently. I don't want to get off topic, the point of this whole discussion is that the Federal Gun Free School Zones Act of 1995 does exist, extensive case-law shows it to be enforceable, and ATF has stated in official correspondence that it can be enforced against permit holders carrying under reciprocity agreements.
www.handgunlaw.us/documents/batf_school_zone.pdf
Last edited by Eagle2009; 06-22-2011 at 11:59 AM.
No, a few examples exist of it being used as an "add-on" for obvious criminals.
This is not even remotely the same as securing a conviction, through appeals, where the only offense was a FGFSZA violation.
Yes, Marshaul I agree with you. What I was trying to demonstrate with the First amendment inconsistencies is to clearly demonstrate that laws, stare decis (case law) and enforcement change. Eagle, you point to a law that predates Heller and McDonald and you show stare decis that also predates Heller, et al. Furthermore, there are a few current cases in state and district courts now that are challenging residency requirements for state licenses/permits. These are supported by SAF and when they make their way through the appellate process they will gut the GFSZA. You stated in a PM to me that you want to change this law. What are you doing, other than this very strange scare tactic, to change this law?
p.s. If you are saying that while visiting a neighboring state and I walk 900 feet away from a school on the public sidewalk that I will be convicted of violation based on current law, stare decis and current enforcement practices then I think you have a fundamental lacking of legal standing.
Last edited by gogodawgs; 06-22-2011 at 01:13 PM.
Live Free or Die!
I'm not saying you will be convicted the first time you do it, I'm saying you are matter of factly violating the law, and you can be convicted if a US Attorney feels like prosecuting you. I consider the case-law reasonably extensive, as far as there being a conviction upheld from nearly every circuit. Nothing in the law says it has to be used as an add-on crime, so there is no reason the court decisions would change if it were to be used as a sole offense. If you feel comfortable committing a felony and trusting the government to use restraint in prosecuting, that is your decision... but it is a very dangerous bet on your part. Even if you somehow beat the charges, you would be out a significant sum of money, and would have an arrest record following you around for the rest of your life. I'm not saying every US Attorney would prosecute a permit holder for walking down the sidewalk 900 feet away from a school in a reciprocal state. I'm saying any of them can prosecute you for it, and would likely get a conviction. I guarantee you there is a prosecutor somewhere that wouldn't think twice about sending a "gun toting criminal" to prison.
If a person carries a gun into a Post Office or a Gun Free School Zone, without complying with the exceptions set forth in those laws, are they still Law Abiding Citizens just because they were committing no OTHER offenses at the time?
If I am stopped for speeding, am I innocent and law abiding simply because I wasn't drunk at the time?
HA!
Ever hear of the Innocence Project? They get people off death row who were wrongfully convicted.
Ever hear of the Madison Five? All got DC tickets even though the AG says OC is not DC, & they weren't doing anything disorderly.
There is no such thing as a completely law abiding citizen anymore. There are so many obscure, conflicting laws that it is virtually impossible to abide by them all. On the average, every American commits three felonies per day, simply because of the tangled web of laws in place.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
