• 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.

School zone arguments

paul@paul-fisher.com

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
4,049
Location
Chandler, AZ
In chatting with various elected officials about Constitutional Carry, one of the issues I keep running into is their fear of messing with the GFSZ. They are concerned with organizations like WAVE, The Joyce Foundation, Mayors Against Illegal Guns crucifying them for 'allowing those bad guns inside of schools'. Don't forget, 'it's for the children'!

While we all know and understand that the argument is ridiculous and that laws only stop law abiding people, we need to come up with some additional arguments.

I know and believe the big one, 'It's my right'. The thing we need to remember is that they are politicians. Most of them are trying to make this a career.

Let's work on some others together that we can use.

For example, I was thinking about what would happen if Constitutional Carry passed without an adjustment/repeal to the GFSZ. How would it effect me?

This is what I came up with.

Dear Senator Kedzie,

I know we have talked extensively about Constitutional Carry. I wanted to add some additional data for you to consider about the GFSZ.

If, for example, 941.23 was repealed and 167.31 was 'fixed' so that I could conceal and car carry and the GFSZ wasn't dealt with, I would have to unload my handgun and stick it into a case as I was driving through Elkhorn and turned the corner from hwy 67 to the street in front of the post office. 1000' from a school is at that corner. So, I could not walk into US Bank armed because their only entrance is on a public sidewalk within 1000' of the school, I couldn't go to Casa Maria armed for the same reason.

In addition, I couldn't have a loaded weapon on any of the street outlined in the attached map from the Milwaukee Police Department because of the presence of schools.

I haven't actually sent this yet but this is the direction I was thinking. If each of us could personalize where we would not be able to carry if they didn't touch the GFSZ, I think they will slowly see the light.

What do you all think?
 

protias

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
7,308
Location
SE, WI
GFSZ have done nothing more than murder innocent people. Since the law was enacted, more people have died in those supposed GFSZ than before the ban was enacted.

My brain isn't in working real well today, so if my English doesn't sound right, that's the reason why.
 

civilwarguy

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 20, 2011
Messages
197
Location
elkhorn wi
I like the points you touched paul. As you know from our talks i have already used points lie yours while speaking with my (our) assemblyman as well as the fact that where i live would prohibit me from going pretty much anywhere. Another point i think we don't touch on enough is the traffic hazards it would create if anytime we are about to go through a school zone we would have to pull over to unload and encase said firearm and then again to reload and holster the same firearm once we left the school zone. This would greatly put our lives in danger as most of the time that would entail doing so on the side of the road because as law abiding citizens we would not want to break any laws.


just my thoughts......
 

Trip20

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2006
Messages
526
Location
Wausau Area
While we all know and understand that the argument is ridiculous and that laws only stop law abiding people, we need to come up with some additional arguments.

I think you're dismissing the main and most important argument against GFSZ's. I think it's best to demonstrate the absurdity of a GFSZ for what it is. And you did that with the quote above. A GFSZ will do nothing to deter a criminal intent on committing acts of violence with a weapon. Violating a GFSZ is simply one more charge added to a long list of charges once someone decides to do something evil with a firearm. If attempted murder being illegal is not enough to stop an evil person's attempts, neither will a GFSZ statute.
 

CalicoJack10

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Messages
559
Location
Arbor Vitae
OK, here is one for you. I live in a school zone, or at least within the 1000 foot mark. I have wolves, coyotes, mountain lions, bear, and at least 7 aggressive sex offenders in my area. My mailbox is within walking distance, but is also off my property. I have a line of woods between myself and the local school zone, and I have nearly 30 years of firearms experience. Including being a firearms instructor.

So if I carry my side arm to get the mail while the animals are out lurking, I have to risk being attacked because I am about 75 feet short of being outside the school zone. Or if my daughter is out at the neighbors and one of these sexual predators comes trying to hurt her, I can not defend her with my firearm no matter the circumstances.
 

springfield 1911

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2008
Messages
484
Location
Racine, Wisconsin, USA
Paul can the wording be changed to , The use of a firearm with criminal intent against another while on school grounds X amount of time will be added at sentencing.

Wording would have to ensure that self defense is exempt.
 

springfield 1911

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2008
Messages
484
Location
Racine, Wisconsin, USA
I think you're dismissing the main and most important argument against GFSZ's. I think it's best to demonstrate the absurdity of a GFSZ for what it is. And you did that with the quote above. A GFSZ will do nothing to deter a criminal intent on committing acts of violence with a weapon. Violating a GFSZ is simply one more charge added to a long list of charges once someone decides to do something evil with a firearm. If attempted murder being illegal is not enough to stop an evil person's attempts, neither will a GFSZ statute.

Thank you Trip20, Better thought out and said.
 

Flipper

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
1,140
Location
, Wisconsin, USA
It's been ineffective in preventing school shootings. Since the federal government's first version was enacted, in 1990, numerous school shootings have occurred, including Columbine, the Pennsylvania Amish school, Virginia Tech, and here in Wisconsin, Weston and Marinette.

As far as Wisconsin is concerned, why is it necessary to have a state law that essentially duplicates the federal law? Repeal of the state law would not affect the federal law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun-Free_School_Zones_Act_of_1990

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_shooting
 

phred

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2010
Messages
768
Location
North Central Wisconsin, ,
I agree, however, do not some of the other states only have an exemption if you have a permit, kinda like the Federal GFSZ?

For purposes of the GFSZ, any LAC, 18 yrs or older, may legally carry a firearm and is not bound by the Federal GFSZ Law. or something to that effect. I think we discussed this in previous threads. I can't get the search to work here.

From Vermont thread

Well, AZ allows for unrestricted Open Carry, and nowadays for unrestricted Conceal Carry. AZ has no GFSZ law. The only law is that a gun on a school campus must be unloaded and out of sight in a locked vehicle.

13-3121. Firearm possession; outside the grounds of a school

For the purposes of 18 United States Code section 922, a person who lawfully owns or possesses a firearm pursuant to the constitution and laws of this state is considered by this state to be individually licensed and verified to possess a firearm immediately outside the grounds of a school.
 
Last edited:

MKEgal

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
4,383
Location
in front of my computer, WI
I think the argument that should be most effective is that GFSZ is ignored by criminals.
All it does is disarm good law-abiding citizens.
Maybe include links to (or printouts of) news stories of shootings that have happened in GFSZ.

Another angle that just occurred to me is that if our cars were considered our property just like our homes & yards are, then the GFSZ is meaningless with regards to car carry.
Of course, that leaves the (mostly poor) inner-city people who don't have cars & need to walk everywhere without protection, also those who choose to walk their kids to school,
so I think it's better to limit the "school zone" part of the GFSZ to the actual school building, or maybe the building & the grounds which are inside the inner edge of the sidewalk.
 

Captain Nemo

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2010
Messages
1,029
Location
Somewhere, Wisconsin, USA
I have two thoughts on the issue.

First: There has not been enough talk or information given that separates the school property from the 1000 foot wide imaginary boundary around the school property. I am of the opinion that as a group we don't have a large issue with gun restrictions on school property. Our largest argument is with the 1000 foot buffer zone around the property. Of course our ideal want would be recind of the GFSZ law. That ain't gonna happen for the very reasons Paul described. Yet we have not made it clear that we would be willing to leave the law intact as it applies to the school property itself but want the 1000 foot perimeter restrictions removed. That type of change would eliminate most of our grievances. It also would be of benefit to law enforcement in that it would allow off-duty officers to at least carry uncased weapons up to the edge of school property. As the law now sits off duty officers must comply to the 1000 foot restrictions same as we (948.605(2)(b)(7).

Second: The GFSZ law is not an absolute restriction on the carry of a firearm in the 1000 foot buffer area. It only restricts the carry of visible firearms. It is perfectly lawful to carry an unloaded and cased firearm in the zone and it is lawful to carry such firearm on public property as well as private property within the zone. 948.605(2)(b)1, 948.605(2)(b)3, 948.605(2)(b)3a.

I don't think most politicians are even aware of those issues. They think the statute is an absolute protection of our children against mayhem. It doesn't even enter into their minds that a maniac bent on harming the children first of all will simply ignore the statute or at very least will carry a unloaded cased weapon to a strategic location and uncase the firearm load it and carry out his carnage. He would violate nothing in the GFSZ statute in doing so.
 
Last edited:

paul@paul-fisher.com

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
4,049
Location
Chandler, AZ
I have two thoughts on the issue.

First: There has not been enough talk or information given that separates the school property from the 1000 foot wide imaginary boundary around the school property. I am of the opinion that as a group we don't have a large issue with gun restrictions on school property. Our largest argument is with the 1000 foot buffer zone around the property. Of course our ideal want would be recind of the GFSZ law. That ain't gonna happen for the very reasons Paul described. Yet we have not made it clear that we would be willing to leave the law intact as it applies to the school property itself but want the 1000 foot perimeter restrictions removed. That type of change would eliminate most of our grievances. It also would be of benefit to law enforcement in that it would allow off-duty officers to at least carry uncased weapons up to the edge of school property. As the law now sits off duty officers must comply to the 1000 foot restrictions same as we (948.605(2)(b)(7).

Second: The GFSZ law is not an absolute restriction on the carry of a firearm in the 1000 foot buffer area. It only restricts the carry of visible firearms. It is perfectly lawful to carry an unloaded and cased firearm in the zone and it is lawful to carry such firearm on public property as well as private property within the zone. 948.605(2)(b)1, 948.605(2)(b)3, 948.605(2)(b)3a.

I don't think most politicians are even aware of those issues. They think the statute is an absolute protection of our children against mayhem. It doesn't even enter into their minds that a maniac bent on harming the children first of all will simply ignore the statute or at very least will carry a unloaded cased weapon to a strategic location and uncase the firearm load it and carry out his carnage. He would violate nothing in the GFSZ statute in doing so.

Thanks Captain. Good synopsis as usual. That lat paragraph is the jist of what I was trying to say. If the politicians think we want the GFSZ law eliminated because we want the right to carry our weapons into the school, then we will not get it. What I am asking is for more arguments that show the inconvenience of the 1000' rule. Something they can relate to. Something they hadn't thought about. We can stomp our feet and say 'GFSZ is unconstitutional' (and it probably is) but the politicians won't fix it without some OTHER good reason.

Please, do not crucify me for seeming to be willing to give up our rights. I'm not! I'm trying to convince in other ways.

In my opinion, the legislature would be pleased as punch when WCI wins the GFSZ lawsuit. They can then say 'those mean judges put your kids at risk, we didn't'.

If you notice, District Attorney Fox, when he declared all other gun related restriction unconstitutional, staid away from the GFSZ law. He is a politician as well. He wants to be re-elected.
 

johnny amish

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2010
Messages
1,024
Location
High altitude of Vernon County, ,
The truly sad part about this discussion is something that lawmakers and the anti-gun public will never understand, we are trying to do our best to follow the law while not giving up our rights. They don't understand that being law abiding is how we are. As we all know the bg's never sit around having this discussion because they don't care, they will do as they wish, we can't. Where is the easy button when you need it?
 

Nutczak

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2008
Messages
2,165
Location
The Northwoods, lakeland area, Wisconsin, USA
Paul can the wording be changed to , The use of a firearm with criminal intent against another while on school grounds X amount of time will be added at sentencing.

Wording would have to ensure that self defense is exempt.

Exactly, or if they are so concerned about it, do what other states have done and prohibit carry "in" school grounds while school is in normal session unless picking up and dropping of children.
 

LR Yote 312

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 11, 2010
Messages
458
Location
God's Country, Wi
For us in Milwaukee Area we are stuck with Run and Hide Larson.....
I dont see anything getting thru to that clown.

EVERYsingle time I tried e mailing him I get a "Non Deliverable" mailer demon back.
Yet he has the balls to e mail a "Weakly Report" or should I say a "Weakling Report".

I wish I had the extra cash....He would get a bucket of tar and a bag of feathers in a care package


LR Yote
 

Max

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2008
Messages
335
Location
, Wisconsin, USA
Second: The GFSZ law is not an absolute restriction on the carry of a firearm in the 1000 foot buffer area. It only restricts the carry of visible firearms. It is perfectly lawful to carry an unloaded and cased firearm in the zone and it is lawful to carry such firearm on public property as well as private property within the zone. 948.605(2)(b)1, 948.605(2)(b)3, 948.605(2)(b)3a.

Don't forget though that when you unload and encase, you are violating the conceal carry law. A misdemeanor is better then a felony though.
 
Top