• 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.

Carrying Near a College Campus

REALteach4u

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2010
Messages
428
Location
Spfld, Mo.
IIRC correctly, the fed GFSZ allows state laws to overide this act and MO CCW laws do that. Here is the ATF brochure. The GFSZ is not pre-emptive.

Then here is the state CCW law on schools in MO; #10.

Please show me a court case or cases where State law has, does, and continues to exempt someone from Federal law as it pertains to firearms, be sure to cite the specific State and Federal laws that were involved.

If that were even remotely possible States would pass laws to overturn every single Federal law on the books, which isn't the case at all. For example, the GCA of 1986, NICS checks, and other gun control laws at the Federal level would be non-existent; to my knowledge they are still in place. I had to fill out a Form 4473 recently, I had to file a Form 4 and pay a $200 tax stamp last year for a purchase. In fact, I do not know of a single State that does not have to follow those rules. Several have tried of late to make the claim that the Interstate Commerce Clause does not apply to products manufactured within the State that never leave the State.

It exempst us from State level issues, not Federal.
 
Last edited:

REALteach4u

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2010
Messages
428
Location
Spfld, Mo.
To my understanding the only way you would be exempt from federal law, concerning a Missouri school (GFSZ) would be with a valid Missouri permit.
I heard a saying once or twice somewhere, " It doesn't have to make sense, it's the law."

Originally Posted by Redbaron007
I agree with you. You have to have that State's CCW for it to be effective.
Question...AZ perimit = AZ schools (but MO resident...does it make a difference?) Just curious

Good question, I would think you would be exempt from the federal law. But I couldn't speak to AZ state laws.

It seems to me that by Missouri accepting the Maine CCW permit for me, doesn't that mean they are indirectly authorizing it? Ie: ME non-res permit accepted by MO would allow carry on campus in MO? Maybe I'm just thinking too deep about it.

To my understanding, reciprocity means that you must abide by the laws of the State you find yourself within. So if you're in Missouri all of the same rules, exemptions, and protections that apply to us should apply to you. That would mean you would need to obtain written permission.

Here's how I would ask it if it were to be sent up to my politicians and the MOAG.

If someone holding a valid concealed carry permit issued by another State or political subdivision outside of Missouri enters the jurisdiction of Missouri, will the rules within RSMO 571.107 apply to that person in the same manner as they would as if that person held a valid concealed carry endorsement issued by Missouri? To be more specific on my question on RSMO 571.107, would the requirements for obtaining permission to carry upon specific premises be honored in the same fashion for a permit holder from another State as that of an endorsement holder from Missouri?

RSMO 571.107
http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C500-599/5710000107.HTM
 
Last edited:

LMTD

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Apr 8, 2010
Messages
1,919
Location
, ,
Please show me a court case or cases where State law has, does, and continues to exempt someone from Federal law as it pertains to firearms, be sure to cite the specific State and Federal laws that were involved.


It exempst us from State level issues, not Federal.

The BATF has responded to questions regarding the GFSZA and they have clearly defined, the license must be from the state the school is located within or they will pursue charges. they make no bones about it at all.

If you are in MO and violate it without a MO issued permit, you have no protections what so ever just as if you are in another state carrying on a MO permit, you are subject to it there as well.

It is VERY CLEAR and there are really no questions about it at all. Realteach4u is SPOT ON.

The only good news is the GFSZA is typically an adder charge and is subject to somewhat selective action. It would likely depend a lot more on the political climate than it would anything else, that by no means separates truth from reality and if your carrying in MO near schools, I would HIGHLY recommend you get a MO permit and be cautious, your freedom could depend upon it.
 

NeoShade

Regular Member
Joined
May 25, 2010
Messages
39
Location
Rolla, MO
I asked the attorney general about this, and he replied.

Dear Mr. xxxxx,

Thank you for your inquiry. Attorney General Koster has asked that I respond.

Section 571.107 provides that even with a ccw, the permit holder is not authorized to carry concealed weapons into the places mentioned from Sections 571.107.1(1) to (17). If a permit holder enters any of these places, he may be denied entry or removed. The statute specifies that this is not a criminal act. However, if the permit holder refuses to leave, Section 571.101.2 provides for citations and fines upon subsequent violations. Section 571.101.2 further contemplates charges arising from the citation:


So it is legal. you just can be asked to leave, and if the police/university is not well versed in the law, you might be tackled/attacked. I would carry though.
 

REALteach4u

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2010
Messages
428
Location
Spfld, Mo.
The BATF has responded to questions regarding the GFSZA and they have clearly defined, the license must be from the state the school is located within or they will pursue charges. they make no bones about it at all.

If you are in MO and violate it without a MO issued permit, you have no protections what so ever just as if you are in another state carrying on a MO permit, you are subject to it there as well.

It is VERY CLEAR and there are really no questions about it at all. Realteach4u is SPOT ON.

The only good news is the GFSZA is typically an adder charge and is subject to somewhat selective action. It would likely depend a lot more on the political climate than it would anything else, that by no means separates truth from reality and if your carrying in MO near schools, I would HIGHLY recommend you get a MO permit and be cautious, your freedom could depend upon it.

Well there's our first mistake....listening to the BATFE on their own rules, something they don't even understand about 90% of the time.
LMTD, weren't you one of the folks that guided me that particular direction some time ago on the "license" conflict in the NICS exemption?

Funny that the word license is mentioned in regards to the BATFE. Myself and several others went over this EXACT word with the BATFE in regards to the NICS exemption and they informed several that it was intended to mean Law Enforcement license issued by the State, yet they could not provide written proof of where it said such. Since Missouri does not issue a "license" to carry, merely an endorsement that can be placed upon a DL or State ID card, no such item in Missouri law fits in their definition. The words of those in the KC field office, not mine.

So now that you've provided a conflicting statement from the BATFE I'll reiterate my previous statement of NOT listening to the BATFE on their own rules, something they don't even understand about 90% of the time. Because the BATFE was caught lying about this issue and were promptly called out about their so-called definition of the word "license" in regards to NICS checks and they have since discontinued the use of the word and now use "permits". Yet, the FBI who is responsible for NICS checks DOES NOT use the word permit at all and clearly defines the methods of obtaining a clearance for a Form 4473; NICS check, going through a State that acts as a Point of Contact (POC), or in States where it acts as POC for handguns but not long guns they use the State POC for handguns and NICS for long guns. Who do you think will be sending such a case to prosecution? It certainly isn't the BATFE. Chances are it will be the FBI, but the circumstances have to be right.

Remember, the BATFE can institute rule changes with severe penalties attached without warning, without going through congress, and YOU can be forced to pay the penalty as a result of their ignorance.

So look at this for a moment and decide for yourself if you actually trust what you're "told" verbally by the BATFE, never trust what you're "told" verbally from them, it's dumb. If it's not in writing somewhere then it isn't true and it simply does not exist. Always ask for where to find the information for yourself and where to find the definitions of the applicable terms. (been there and done that, it sucks)

Form 4473 NICS exemption under Question 23 states what is in 27 CFR § 478.102(d). The use of license only applies to a FFL holder, the rest is "permit". http://www.atf.gov/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdf

The actual 27 CFR 478.102(d) from justia.com
http://law.justia.com/cfr/title27/27-2.0.1.2.3.6.1.12.html

The FBI's rendition of the NICS exemption under "NICS Background Checks":
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/general-information/fact-sheet

Differences are present. So again, DO NOT trust what the BATFE "tells" you verbally. None of it can ever be taken as factual and it should never be considered to be truthful. In many cases they'll feed you a line of bull just to get you off the phone.
 
Last edited:

REALteach4u

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2010
Messages
428
Location
Spfld, Mo.
I asked the attorney general about this, and he replied.

Dear Mr. xxxxx,

Thank you for your inquiry. Attorney General Koster has asked that I respond.

Section 571.107 provides that even with a ccw, the permit holder is not authorized to carry concealed weapons into the places mentioned from Sections 571.107.1(1) to (17). If a permit holder enters any of these places, he may be denied entry or removed. The statute specifies that this is not a criminal act. However, if the permit holder refuses to leave, Section 571.101.2 provides for citations and fines upon subsequent violations. Section 571.101.2 further contemplates charges arising from the citation:


So it is legal. you just can be asked to leave, and if the police/university is not well versed in the law, you might be tackled/attacked. I would carry though.

Is that in it's entirety word for word?

If so, it illustrates a lack of knowledge on the AG's part. Specifically that State law denies carry in some of those locations UNLESS you have obtained written permission. Remember, written permission is a MUST because verbal permission can change upon the arrival of LEOs.



At any rate, when the GFSZ repeal hits we need to let our politicians know we support its prompt repeal with no compromises.
 
Last edited:

Redbaron007

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2011
Messages
1,613
Location
SW MO
Please show me a court case or cases where State law has, does, and continues to exempt someone from Federal law as it pertains to firearms, be sure to cite the specific State and Federal laws that were involved.

If that were even remotely possible States would pass laws to overturn every single Federal law on the books, which isn't the case at all. For example, the GCA of 1986, NICS checks, and other gun control laws at the Federal level would be non-existent; to my knowledge they are still in place. I had to fill out a Form 4473 recently, I had to file a Form 4 and pay a $200 tax stamp last year for a purchase. In fact, I do not know of a single State that does not have to follow those rules. Several have tried of late to make the claim that the Interstate Commerce Clause does not apply to products manufactured within the State that never leave the State.

It exempst us from State level issues, not Federal.

I'm not aware of any, are you aware of the opposite? Please provide if there are any?

The feds let the states do it; please read, it's says itself it is not pre-emptive!
 

Redbaron007

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2011
Messages
1,613
Location
SW MO
Is that in it's entirety word for word?

If so, it illustrates a lack of knowledge on the AG's part. Specifically that State law denies carry in some of those locations UNLESS you have obtained written permission. Remember, written permission is a MUST because verbal permission can change upon the arrival of LEOs.



At any rate, when the GFSZ repeal hits we need to let our politicians know we support its prompt repeal with no compromises.

You have more knowledge than the AG? Are you an attorney?

Agree to repeal the GFSZ.
 
Last edited:

Oramac

Regular Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
572
Location
St Louis, Mo
I asked the attorney general about this, and he replied.

Dear Mr. xxxxx,

Thank you for your inquiry. Attorney General Koster has asked that I respond.

Section 571.107 provides that even with a ccw, the permit holder is not authorized to carry concealed weapons into the places mentioned from Sections 571.107.1(1) to (17). If a permit holder enters any of these places, he may be denied entry or removed. The statute specifies that this is not a criminal act. However, if the permit holder refuses to leave, Section 571.101.2 provides for citations and fines upon subsequent violations. Section 571.101.2 further contemplates charges arising from the citation:


So it is legal. you just can be asked to leave, and if the police/university is not well versed in the law, you might be tackled/attacked. I would carry though.


This is almost verbatim what I was told when I asked lawyers about the law. Many many people have basically said "Carry. If they ask you to leave, leave. It's that simple."
 
Last edited:

REALteach4u

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2010
Messages
428
Location
Spfld, Mo.
I'm not aware of any, are you aware of the opposite? Please provide if there are any?

The feds let the states do it; please read, it's says itself it is not pre-emptive!


Since we've not posted anything linking to the Federal information, let's attack it from both sides! You hunt it down and I'll do the same. Let's get the Fedearl stuff posted. State law is already up and 3 aspects exist: 1st is Where ever Federal law applies. 2nd is the wonderful exemption with permission. 3rd is Section 2 where it says....It shall not be a crime.

Wikipedia gave me an interesting effects result. Reciprocity agreements do not protect from GFSA. That's BS all around!


Looks like we're goig to be in 18USC 922(q) and 921(a)(25).
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/44/922
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/44/921

921(a)(25): (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.

922q:

(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.



So once again we have Federal law using the term "license" and since Missouri does not "license" anyone other than Law Enforcment to carry a firearm... We have an endorsement process, not a licensure. There is a HUGE difference between the two. This is why there needs to be a language change.
 
Last edited:

cshoff

Regular Member
Joined
May 20, 2010
Messages
687
Location
, Missouri, USA
If you have a valid Missouri CCW endorsement, you are EXEMPT from the Federal laws that prohibit firearms in areas defined as "school zones" under USC § 921 (25)(a)(b) and (26), while you are in those areas within the State of Missouri. If you only have a Maine permit, you are NOT exempt from those Federal laws while you are in those areas within the State of Missouri.

BTW - There is case law on this and a "permit" or "endorsement" does satisfy the requirement that you be "licensed" by the state in which the "school zone" is located.
 
Last edited:

Redbaron007

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2011
Messages
1,613
Location
SW MO
Since we've not posted anything linking to the Federal information, let's attack it from both sides! You hunt it down and I'll do the same. Let's get the Fedearl stuff posted. State law is already up and 3 aspects exist: 1st is Where ever Federal law applies. 2nd is the wonderful exemption with permission. 3rd is Section 2 where it says....It shall not be a crime.

Wikipedia gave me an interesting effects result. Reciprocity agreements do not protect from GFSA. That's BS all around!


Looks like we're goig to be in 18USC 922(q) and 921(a)(25).
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/44/922
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/44/921

921(a)(25): (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.

922q:

(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.



So once again we have Federal law using the term "license" and since Missouri does not "license" anyone other than Law Enforcment to carry a firearm... We have an endorsement process, not a licensure. There is a HUGE difference between the two. This is why there needs to be a language change.


What about this little part:

922(q)4
(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.

Then MO571.107(10) says this:
(10) Any higher education institution or elementary or secondary school facility without the consent of the governing body of the higher education institution or a school official or the district school board. Possession of a firearm in a vehicle on the premises of any higher education institution or elementary or secondary school facility shall not be a criminal offense so long as the firearm is not removed from the vehicle or brandished while the vehicle is on the premises;

then this;

2. Carrying of a concealed firearm in a location specified in subdivisions (1) to (17) of subsection 1 of this section by any individual who holds a concealed carry endorsement issued pursuant to sections 571.101 to 571.121 shall not be a criminal act but may subject the person to denial to the premises or removal from the premises. ...[snip]



:eek:
 

HighFlyingA380

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2011
Messages
301
Location
West St. Louis County (Ellisville)
So in short, let's see if I understand all this mess:

1- My Maine non-res permit does NOT allow me to carry within 1,000ft. of the university property. So all the businesses (Dominoes, gas station, ect...) that are right across the street are off limits for me.

2- My apartment is across the street from University property (practice ball fields). Can I not carry there either? Since it's not owned by me?

3- My CCW instructor pretty much lied to me saying that Maine was better than MO permit, since there was less to do, but they were completely interchangeable.

4- Does all this apply regardless of concealed/open carry?

Sorry if this seems like I'm beating a dead horse, but I just wanna make sure I understand what's going on. If I get a BS firearms charge due to not understanding all this crap, It's a good possibility that I won't be able to get the security clearances I need, and that would be about $75,000 down the toilet for my career schooling.
 

REALteach4u

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2010
Messages
428
Location
Spfld, Mo.
What about this little part:

922(q)4
(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.

Then MO571.107
(10) says this:
(10) Any higher education institution or elementary or secondary school facility without the consent of the governing body of the higher education institution or a school official or the district school board. Possession of a firearm in a vehicle on the premises of any higher education institution or elementary or secondary school facility shall not be a criminal offense so long as the firearm is not removed from the vehicle or brandished while the vehicle is on the premises;

then this;

2. Carrying of a concealed firearm in a location specified in subdivisions (1) to (17) of subsection 1 of this section by any individual who holds a concealed carry endorsement issued pursuant to sections 571.101 to 571.121 shall not be a criminal act but may subject the person to denial to the premises or removal from the premises. ...[snip]



:eek:

I tend to agree, but read the emboldened part again. It does not say that State law pre-empts Federal law in any way. It does not even grant an exemption. What it does say is that States can, on their own, enact their own GFSA laws. It does not say that they can overturn, pre-empt against, or override the Federal GFSA.

Please make sure you're illustrating the clear line between the Revised Missouri Statutes and the United States Code. Your post seems like you slapped them together (inadvertently).

Why do folks keep trying to read into the law what clearly is not there and continue to overlook RSMO 571.107.1(9) Any place where the carrying of a firearm is prohibited by federal law.

I've shown the information clearly that illustrates no such exemption exists and that Federal law has specific requirements and a term that may or may not apply to Missouri depending on each individual BATFE agent's possible interpretation because it's not actually defined. Show me the information exempting the State of Missouri from Federal law please. That has yet to be accomplished.

RSMO 571.107.1(10) only exempts you from State law, specifically RSMO 571.030.1(10) Carries a firearm, whether loaded or unloaded, or any other weapon readily capable of lethal use into any school, onto any school bus, or onto the premises of any function or activity sponsored or sanctioned by school officials or the district school board.
 
Last edited:

cshoff

Regular Member
Joined
May 20, 2010
Messages
687
Location
, Missouri, USA
So in short, let's see if I understand all this mess:

1- My Maine non-res permit does NOT allow me to carry within 1,000ft. of the university property. So all the businesses (Dominoes, gas station, ect...) that are right across the street are off limits for me.

Technically, yes and no. If they are public areas, such as streets, sidewalks, etc, within the Federally defined "school zone", then they fall under the prohibitions specified in USC § 921 & USC § 922. If the areas are privately owned, such as inside a convenience store, then they fall under the exemptions listed in USC § 922, (A), (B), (i).

2- My apartment is across the street from University property (practice ball fields). Can I not carry there either? Since it's not owned by me?

No. Federal law provides an exemption on "private property not part of school grounds".

3- My CCW instructor pretty much lied to me saying that Maine was better than MO permit, since there was less to do, but they were completely interchangeable.

Not sure if he "lied" because I'm not sure what he said exactly. Yes, the ME permit is less costly, requires less training, and can be done through the mail, but IMO, it is not "better" due to a number of reasons, the exemption to the Federal laws not being the least of those.

4- Does all this apply regardless of concealed/open carry?

Yep.

Sorry if this seems like I'm beating a dead horse, but I just wanna make sure I understand what's going on. If I get a BS firearms charge due to not understanding all this crap, It's a good possibility that I won't be able to get the security clearances I need, and that would be about $75,000 down the toilet for my career schooling.

No problem. Keep in mind that charges under this federal code are generally pressed IN ADDITION TO other charges and are not usually something Federal Prosecutors use as a stand-alone charge. But you never know what the next prosecutor might or might not due.
 

cshoff

Regular Member
Joined
May 20, 2010
Messages
687
Location
, Missouri, USA
I tend to agree, but read the emboldened part again. It does not say that State law pre-empts Federal law in any way. It does not even grant an exemption. What it does say is that States can, on their own, enact their own GFSA laws. It does not say that they can overturn, pre-empt against, or override the Federal GFSA.

Please make sure you're illustrating the clear line between the Revised Missouri Statutes and the United States Code. Your post seems like you slapped them together (inadvertently).

Why do folks keep trying to read into the law what clearly is not there and continue to overlook RSMO 571.107.1(9) Any place where the carrying of a firearm is prohibited by federal law.

I've shown the information clearly that illustrates no such exemption exists and that Federal law has specific requirements and a term that may or may not apply to Missouri depending on each individual BATFE agent's possible interpretation because it's not actually defined. Show me the information exempting the State of Missouri from Federal law please. That has yet to be accomplished.

RSMO 571.107.1(10) only exempts you from State law, specifically RSMO 571.030.1(10) Carries a firearm, whether loaded or unloaded, or any other weapon readily capable of lethal use into any school, onto any school bus, or onto the premises of any function or activity sponsored or sanctioned by school officials or the district school board.

Search out case law on this. You are inserting your opinion which is NOT congruent with reality.
 

REALteach4u

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2010
Messages
428
Location
Spfld, Mo.
So in short, let's see if I understand all this mess:

1- My Maine non-res permit does NOT allow me to carry within 1,000ft. of the university property. So all the businesses (Dominoes, gas station, ect...) that are right across the street are off limits for me.

2- My apartment is across the street from University property (practice ball fields). Can I not carry there either? Since it's not owned by me?

3- My CCW instructor pretty much lied to me saying that Maine was better than MO permit, since there was less to do, but they were completely interchangeable.

4- Does all this apply regardless of concealed/open carry?

Sorry if this seems like I'm beating a dead horse, but I just wanna make sure I understand what's going on. If I get a BS firearms charge due to not understanding all this crap, It's a good possibility that I won't be able to get the security clearances I need, and that would be about $75,000 down the toilet for my career schooling.

To answer your questions or at lest attempt to not continue muddying the waters. (not our fault, we're all trying to provide actual and accurate info)

1. Federal law says the reciprocity in Missouri would not protect you from the Federal side of things. However reciprocity while you are here is supposed to require you to abide by Missouri law, not the law of your issuing State. It is also supposed to provide you the same protections as someone holding a valid Missouri permit.

2. Your apartment is private property and is considered protected under Federal and State laws.

3. Did you obtain your Maine permit for age reasons or something in Missouri law that differed from Mo?

4. Until SB680 gets through in the proper manner (uncompromised) then have your CCW as a backup protection because you can easily wind up in a municipality that has made open carry illegal. When in doubt, cover up since you have a CCW. Don't take anyone's "word" that something is legal. Get the law in writing before you do. That person won't be charged, it will be you and only you.

Do you think someone who doesn't know you will show up for court and testify in any manner that could help you? (Doc likely would, so he doesn't count)
 
Last edited:

REALteach4u

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2010
Messages
428
Location
Spfld, Mo.
Search out case law on this. You are inserting your opinion which is NOT congruent with reality.

It's not my opinion when it's right there in writing. How about posting said case law instead of just suggesting it. That's what I've asked for is someone to show the exemption to me and none have thus far.

Are you referring to United States v. Lopez (1995)?
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=u10287

That case overturns the interstate commerce claim by the Government, but I cannot find much else.

Now I/we have an issue. The Gun-Free School Zone Act of 1990 was overturned as unConstitutional in 1994, however a new act was put in place in 1994 called the Gun-Free Schools Act. The 1994 Act applies to school students rather than the general public. http://www2.ed.gov/offices/OSDFS/gfsaguidance.html

However, Congress re-enacted the GFSZA in 1996 which is the language that I previously posted. So unless there's case law post-1996 to illustrate a secondary overturning then we're back to square one of: Show me the case law and where the State is exempt from Federal law.


Help me out here cshoff, you're one of the folks I'd trust to have the info.
 
Last edited:

cshoff

Regular Member
Joined
May 20, 2010
Messages
687
Location
, Missouri, USA
It's not my opinion when it's right there in writing. How about posting said case law instead of just suggesting it. That's what I've asked for is someone to show the exemption to me and none have thus far.

Are you referring to United States v. Lopez (1995)?
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=u10287

That case overturns the interstate commerce claim by the Government, but I cannot find much else.

Now I/we have an issue. The Gun-Free School Zone Act of 1990 was overturned as unConstitutional in 1994, however a new act was put in place in 1994 called the Gun-Free Schools Act. The 1994 Act applies to school students rather than the general public. http://www2.ed.gov/offices/OSDFS/gfsaguidance.html

However, Congress re-enacted the GFSZA in 1996 which is the language that I previously posted. So unless there's case law post-1996 to illustrate a secondary overturning then we're back to square one of: Show me the case law and where the State is exempt from Federal law.


Help me out here cshoff, you're one of the folks I'd trust to have the info.

It has nothing to do with whether or not the State is exempt from Federal law. The only item of importance here is the Federal Law itself, and how it's been applied and ruled on in Federal Court.

Your argument seems to hinge on the statutory language in RSMO 571.107.1.(9), which states:

<snip>.........No driver's license or nondriver's license containing a concealed carry endorsement issued pursuant to sections 571.101 to 571.121 or a concealed carry endorsement or permit issued by another state or political subdivision of another state shall authorize any person to carry concealed firearms into:
.
.
.
(9) Any place where the carrying of a firearm is prohibited by federal law;

So while we can see that the state has acknowledged that they cannot provide a person with an endorsement that would grant them over-riding authority to federal law, the statute itself has no bearing and no relationship whatsoever to USC Title 18, § 921 & § 922.

So that leaves us to contend with the language in USC § 921 & USC § 922 and how it applies to a person who is in a "school zone" in any particular state and who possesses a valid permit/license/endorsement/etc issued by that state to possess/carry said firearm. That language we are dealing with, specifically, is in bold below:

USC § 921. Definitions
(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.



USC § 922. Unlawful acts (q) (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.

Since Missouri specifically requires "law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision [to] verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license" prior to issuing the Missouri Concealed Carry Endorsement, the exemption specified in USC § 922.(B).(ii) would apply to any Missourian who possessed a valid Missouri Endorsement while in any "school zone" located within the State of Missouri. Again, this has nothing to do with State Law since there is no state prohibition on the carrying of concealed firearms onto school premises by endorsement holders. It has everything to do with the US Code I quoted above and the licensing/permitting/endorsement process Missouri uses in reviewing applications for the endorsement.

As to case law, you might look at UNITED STATES of America v. Wiley Block TAIT. Of particular interest in the ruling in that case:

20. The Gun-Free School Zone Act dictates that Tait violated federal law via possessing a handgun in a school zone unless Tait was licensed by Alabama, and either Alabama or Escambia County verified that Tait was qualified to receive the license.5 As Tait did possess a handgun in a school zone, and Tait was licensed in Alabama, the issue boils down to whether Alabama or Escambia County adequately verified that Tait was qualified to receive the license.
.
.
.

24. The government first argues that Alabama licenses never qualify for the exception in 922(q)(2)(B)(ii) because Alabama does not require its licensing agents to conduct background checks on firearms license applicants. The 922(q)(2)(B)(ii) exception only applies if "... the law of the State ... requires that ... [the sheriff] verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license." 18 U.S.C. 922(q)(2)(B)(ii). By its basic terms, the statute merely requires that the Alabama sheriff ensured that Tait was qualified under Alabama law to receive the license. While the Alabama law is extremely lenient, it is nonetheless the only pertinent law. Alabama has chosen its laws, and these are the laws which determine whether the federal statute's exception applies. See Caron v. United States, 524 U.S. 308, 118 S.Ct. at 2011-12, 141 L.Ed.2d 303.6 Alabama is free to set forth its own licensing requirements, and Congress chose to defer to those licensing requirements when it established "qualified under law" as its criterion for the exception to the Gun-Free School Zone Act. Therefore the government's first argument with respect to 922(q)(2)(B)(ii) is rejected.7
.
.
.
CONCLUSION
28 Wiley Block Tait, a former felon, possessed a firearm in a gun-free school zone. Under some circumstances, these facts would have subjected Tait to prosecution under 18 U.S.C. 922. However, Tait violated neither 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1) nor 18 U.S.C. 922(q)(2)(A) in this instance, because both sections have exceptions which legalized Tait's possession. Therefore, the district court's order is

29 AFFIRMED
.
.
.
NOTES

7. The government argues that Alabama's licensing requirements are so relaxed that they will always fail to qualify their licensees for the 922(q)(2)(B)(ii) exception. The government maintains that Congress envisioned a background check when drafting the exception. This would require states to check for prior felonies before issuing firearms licenses. If the state failed to do so, their licenses would be valid for state purposes, but the licensees would not garner the 922(q)(2)(B)(ii) protections. While the government's argument is persuasive, it misses the point. Tait's civil rights were fully restored by operation of Michigan law; hence, even if Alabama had conducted a background check, Tait would have qualified for the license so long as Alabama allowed former felons to possess firearms. Whether Tait qualified for a license under Alabama laws is discussed later in this opinion. Having determined that Alabama's licensing procedure is not relevant to this appeal, we decline to decide whether, in general, Alabama's licensing procedure qualifies its licensees for 922(q)(2)(B)(ii) protections.

http://openjurist.org/202/f3d/1320/united-states-v-tait
 
Last edited:
Top