• 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.

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

MKEgal

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
4,383
Location
in front of my computer, WI
Janitor was doing some work in the school over the weekend,
left his holstered pistol lying on a counter in a preschool classroom.
:banghead: :cuss:

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.)
 

Venator

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
6,462
Location
Lansing area, Michigan, USA
Janitor was doing some work in the school over the weekend,
left his holstered pistol lying on a counter in a preschool classroom.
:banghead: :cuss:

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.
 

hermannr

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2011
Messages
2,327
Location
Okanogan Highland
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.
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
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:uhoh:)

stay safe.
 

markand

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2006
Messages
512
Location
VA
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.
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
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.
 

09jisaac

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
1,692
Location
Louisa, Kentucky
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......
 

MKEgal

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
4,383
Location
in front of my computer, WI
skidmark said:
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 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.

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.
 
Top