Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: He's an idiot, but is NOT charged w/ "GF"SZ violation

  1. #1
    Regular Member MKEgal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    in front of my computer, WI
    Posts
    4,426

    He's an idiot, but is NOT charged w/ "GF"SZ violation

    Janitor was doing some work in the school over the weekend,
    left his holstered pistol lying on a counter in a preschool classroom.


    He's charged w/ reckless endangerment & improper storage.

    Can anyone explain the "GF"SZ rules in CT, & how it's possible he did not break them?
    That seems so obvious.
    He was in the building,
    on school property,
    with a loaded, accessable firearm.

    Does CT honor the federal "GF"SZ exemption for licensees being in a school or on school property?
    (No mention of him being a licensee, though.)
    Quote Originally Posted by MLK, Jr
    The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort & convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge & controversy.
    Quote Originally Posted by MSG Laigaie
    Citizenship is a verb.
    Quote Originally Posted by Proverbs 27:12
    A prudent person foresees the danger ahead and takes precautions.
    The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences.
    Quote Originally Posted by Proverbs 31:17
    She dresses herself with strength and makes her arms strong.

  2. #2
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Venator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lansing area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    6,445
    Quote Originally Posted by MKEgal View Post
    Janitor was doing some work in the school over the weekend,
    left his holstered pistol lying on a counter in a preschool classroom.


    He's charged w/ reckless endangerment & improper storage.

    Can anyone explain the "GF"SZ rules in CT, & how it's possible he did not break them?
    That seems so obvious.
    He was in the building,
    on school property,
    with a loaded, accessable firearm.

    Does CT honor the federal "GF"SZ exemption for licensees being in a school or on school property?
    (No mention of him being a licensee, though.)
    He may have had permission. The federal law allows for that, don't know about any state laws in that regard.
    An Amazon best seller "MY PARENTS OPEN CARRY" http://www.myparentsopencarry.com/

    *The information contained above is not meant to be legal advice, but is solely intended as a starting point for further research. These are my opinions, if you have further questions it is advisable to seek out an attorney that is well versed in firearm law.

  3. #3
    Regular Member hermannr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Okanogan Highland
    Posts
    2,332
    It was a "Pre-school" (basically a day care) Doesn't say so in the article, but probably was private too.

    "School" GFZ is only for K-12.

  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Quote Originally Posted by hermannr View Post
    It was a "Pre-school" (basically a day care) Doesn't say so in the article, but probably was private too.

    "School" GFZ is only for K-12.
    Sorry, hermannr, but Bucks Hill Elementary School http://www.waterbury.k12.ct.us/buc/ qualifies as K-12 in every regard. And it's a part of the public indoctri... - I mean education system. That they also provide pre-school services does not necessarily make that daycare - could be Head Start as just one example. (They seem a little shy about putting info on the website about the Pre-K program)

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    518
    If he has a CT carry permit, I think he would be exempt from the federal GFSZ law, as the OP alluded. Maybe they couldn't substantiate that the janitor was engaged in interstate commerce. The federal GFSZ has gotten kind of confusing. Not sure prosecutors really want to use the law as that would surely tee up an appeal that would reach SCOTUS. Might get the GFSZ law tossed out - again. If there aren't any state laws that apply to possession on school property, the only thing he had going on was the dumb leave-the-gun-on-the-counter thing.

  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Quote Originally Posted by markand View Post
    If he has a CT carry permit, I think he would be exempt from the federal GFSZ law, as the OP alluded. Maybe they couldn't substantiate that the janitor was engaged in interstate commerce. The federal GFSZ has gotten kind of confusing. Not sure prosecutors really want to use the law as that would surely tee up an appeal that would reach SCOTUS. Might get the GFSZ law tossed out - again. If there aren't any state laws that apply to possession on school property, the only thing he had going on was the dumb leave-the-gun-on-the-counter thing.
    If he had (had?) a CT permit all it would do would be to excuse him from the 1000-foot no-carry zone. The GFSZ law deal with carrying a firearm within a buffer zone around the school, but does not address carry inside at all.

    And the GFSZ law has nothing to do with whether or not you are engaged in commerce - interstate or intrastate. It's about whether or not the gun was moved in interstate commerce, which Congress says it was regardless of whether or not you mined all the ore to build the machines to mine the ore to build the gun all within one state.

    There are other, state, laws about no guns in schools.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  7. #7
    Regular Member 09jisaac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Louisa, Kentucky
    Posts
    1,694
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    If he had (had?) a CT permit all it would do would be to excuse him from the 1000-foot no-carry zone. The GFSZ law deal with carrying a firearm within a buffer zone around the school, but does not address carry inside at all.

    And the GFSZ law has nothing to do with whether or not you are engaged in commerce - interstate or intrastate. It's about whether or not the gun was moved in interstate commerce, which Congress says it was regardless of whether or not you mined all the ore to build the machines to mine the ore to build the gun all within one state.

    There are other, state, laws about no guns in schools.

    stay safe.
    You forgot that the children effect interstate commerce too......

  8. #8
    Regular Member MKEgal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    in front of my computer, WI
    Posts
    4,426
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark
    If he had (had?) a CT permit all it would do would be to excuse him from the 1000-foot no-carry zone. The GFSZ law deals with carrying a firearm within a buffer zone around the school, but does not address carry inside at all.
    I was reminded of federal law because of Wisconsin's new cc law, which incorporated the federal "GF"SZ code into our statute 948.605... with 2 exceptions.

    What WI [& apparently other states] made more strict is the provision that people with licenses may not carry on school grounds or in the school.
    Federal law only says "school zone", which is not defined in that section.

    (WI left out the federal provision saying that unloaded & encased is OK, then wrote it out again in the WI statute.)

    Here's the federal code: 18 USC 922 (q) (2) (B) (i) through (vii)

    (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 firearmó
    (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 isó
    (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.
    Hence my original question: does CT follow federal law, or are CT laws more restrictive?
    [insert Google-fu here]
    Never mind... found the answer @ www.handgunlaw.us They're more restrictive.

    http://cga.ct.gov/2011/pub/chap952.htm#Sec53a-217b.htm

    Sec. 53a-217b. Possession of a weapon on school grounds:
    (a) A person is guilty of possession of a weapon on school grounds when, knowing that such person is not licensed or privileged to do so, such person possesses a firearm or deadly weapon, as defined in section 53a-3,
    (1) in or on the real property comprising a public or private elementary or secondary school, or
    (2) at a school-sponsored activity as defined in subsection (h) of section 10-233a.

    (b) The provisions of subsection (a) of this section shall not apply to the otherwise lawful possession of a firearm
    (1) by a person for use in a program approved by school officials in or on such school property or at such school-sponsored activity,
    (2) by a person in accordance with an agreement entered into between school officials and such person or such person's employer,
    (3) by a peace officer, as defined in subdivision (9) of section 53a-3, while engaged in the performance of such peace officer's official duties, or
    (4) by a person while traversing such school property for the purpose of gaining access to public or private lands open to hunting or for other lawful purposes, provided such firearm is not loaded and the entry on such school property is permitted by the local or regional board of education.
    So unless it's in his contract, he's screwed if they want to charge him with that.

Posting Permissions

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