Information on the Federal GFSZ that may be of interest.
The following is some information concerning the federal GFSZ. It would appear that the state version 948.605 is just excess baggage we have to deal with. Note a couple of points. 1. The LEOSA does not protect off-duty or retired cops from the reach of the GFSZ law. 2. A permit to carry issued by another state only gives one the authority to carry a loaded and uncased firearm in the state for which it was issued. A Utah permit only gives one the right to carry a concealed weapon in the state of Utah as far as the ATF is concerned. 3. As far as the federal law is concerned the term "private property" is conditional. A private residence located in a public building does not appear to be exempted. 4. The penalty for conviction of violating the federal GFSZ is very severe. It specifically states that a convicted person is banned from owning a firearm for life.
What does this all mean? It means that if a person carries a firearm which in any point of it's travel has moved by interstate commerce it doesn't much matter what the state laws are concerning a GFSZ. The federal law prevails as evidenced by the court cases listed in the below information. That almost mandates that any carry law passed by our legislature must have a provision in it for a permit. People who intend to carry in other states with reciprocity and those that wish to carry concealed or visible in a Wisconsin "School zone" must have a state issued permit for exemption from the federal GFSZ act. Not having that provision means that a law endorsing constitutional carry of a firearm in most of the larger cities is of no value to amny of us because of overlapping 1000 foot school zones. There are a number of states that are challenging the interstate commerce issue of the federal law however I am not aware that any have been successful. Please correct me if you think I have any of this analysis wrong.
Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Page 1 of BATFE Letter Stating CCW Reciprocity Does Not Protect A Permit Holder From GFSZA 1995The Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 was enacted as section 1702 of the Crime Control Act of 1990[1] and signed by President George H.W. Bush on November 29, 1990.
It was subsequently declared to be an unconstitutional exercise of Congressional authority under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution by the United States Supreme Court, and was therefore voided. This case, United States v. Lopez (1995), was the first time in over half a century that the Supreme Court limited Congressional authority to legislate under the Commerce Clause.
Following the Lopez decision, Congress made minor changes requiring that the firearm in question "has moved in or otherwise affects interstate commerce," and re-enacted the law with President William J. Clinton's signature as the Gun Free School Zones Act of 1995 Title 18 U.S.C Section 922(q). As nearly all firearms have moved in Interstate Commerce at some point in their lives, this was merely a legislative tactic to circumvent the Supreme Court's ruling. Although The 1995 GFSZA has yet to be challenged in the United States Supreme Court, it has been reviewed and upheld by several United States Circuit Courts. In a 2005 Appellate case, United States v Dorsey the minor changes of the revised law were specifically challenged. In the Dorsey case, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that the minor changes were indeed sufficient to correct the issues that had caused the original 1990 law to be struck down in United States v Lopez, and they upheld Dorsey's conviction under the revised 1995 version of the law.
Other convictions upheld post-Lopez under the revised Gun Free School Zone Act of 1995 include:
Page 2 of BATFE Letter Stating CCW Reciprocity Does Not Protect A Permit Holder From GFSZA 1995United States v Danks (Eighth Circuit 1999)
United States v Tait (Eleventh Circuit 2000)
United States v Haywood (Third Circuit 2002)
United States v Smith (Sixth Circuit 2005)
United States v Dorsey (Ninth Circuit 2005)
United States v Nieves-Castaño (First Circuit 2007)
United States v Weekes (Third Circuit 2007)
United States v Benally (Tenth Circuit 2007)
United States v Cruz-Rodriguez (First Circuit 2008)
Contents [hide]
1 Text of the law
1.1 Definitions
1.2 Penalty
1.3 Effect:
1.4 Proposed Amendment:
1.5 More Information:
2 References
[edit] 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.
[edit] DefinitionsTitle 18 U.S.C. §921(25) The term “school zone” means— (A) in, or on the grounds of, a public, parochial or private school; or (B) within a distance of 1,000 feet from the grounds of a public, parochial or private school. (26) The term “school” means a school which provides elementary or secondary education, as determined under State law.
[edit] PenaltyTitle 18 U.S.C Section 924(a) establishes the penalty for violating GFSZA:
Whoever violates the Act shall be fined not more than $5,000, imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the term of imprisonment imposed under this paragraph shall not run concurrently with any other term of imprisonment imposed under any other provision of law.
Note: A conviction under the 1995 GFSZA will cause an individual to become a "prohibited person" under the Gun Control Act of 1968. This will bar them from legally owning firearms for the rest of their life.
[edit] Effect: The neutrality of this section is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (May 2011)
The GFSZA of 1995 deters all forms of unlicensed carry nationwide:
Nearly every State in the nation allows some form of unlicensed carry by law-abiding citizens. This may be open-carry, vehicle-carry, or concealed carry without the need for a permit. The Federal GFSZA deters unlicensed carry by making it a federal crime for an individual carrying a gun to travel on public sidewalks, streets, or highways that pass within one-thousand (1000) feet of the property line of a K-12 school. The large number of K-12 schools in developed areas makes it difficult for an individual to travel any distance without entering a Gun Free School Zone.
Concealed-carry reciprocity agreements between States do not qualify as a GFSZA exception:
Although the Federal GFSZA does provide an exception for an individual licensed to carry a firearm, this exception only applies in the State that physically issued the permit. Forty-eight (48) States have provisions to issue concealed carry permits to citizens. Most of these States also enter into reciprocity agreements with other States where each State agrees to recognize the other's concealed carry permits, just as they recognize an out-of-state driver's license. Because the Federal GFSZA requires the permit be issued by the State in which the school zone is in, it is effectively impossible for a permit holder to travel outside their State of issuance to a reciprocating State without violating the Federal GFSZA. An ATF Letter Explains the Situation.
The GFSZA of 1995 deters carry under the Law Enforcement Officer's Safety Act (LEOSA)
The Law Enforcement Officer's Safety Act (LEOSA) which was intended to give qualified law enforcement officers the protection of carrying nation-wide does not provide any exceptions to Federal Law. Although the GFSZA of 1995 does provide an exception for a law-enforcement officer performing their official duties, it does not provide any protection for an off-duty officer. An off-duty officer is unable to legally travel within one-thousand (1000) feet of any K-12 school while armed. [2]
The GFSZA of 1995 makes it illegal to have a gun at home in some circumstances
Although the Federal GFSZA has an exception for firearms possessed in privately owned homes, it is possible for someone to be convicted under GFSZA for having a firearm in their home in certain circumstances. For example, if a person's home is also part of property owned by a public entity. This occurred in United States v Nieves-Castaño (2007)
The GFSZA of 1995 Prohibits Discharge by Most People
Although the GFSZA95 allows a citizen to discharge a firearm on private property, it prohibits discharge in the Gun Free Zones under any circumstance, unless the person discharging the firearm is a law enforcement officer acting in his or her official capacity, is contracted by the school (security guard), or is participating in a program approved by the school. Even though a carry permit exempts an individual from the GFSZA95 possession restrictions in the State that physically issued it, their permit never exempts them from the discharge restrictions. [3]
[edit] Proposed Amendment:United States Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) has drafted legislation that would repeal the Federal Gun Free School Zones Act of 1995. This legislation has not been introduced.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is the link to the ATF letter explaining the validity of an out of state permit issued by another state, i.e. Utah and Florida, as pertining to GFSZ.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/74/Batfe2002letter_gfsza1995_ccw.pdf
