Gun Free School Zones Act of 1995

The federal law makes no mention of having a permit to carry a fiream. Rather it states that,

"... 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"

In Virginia, as in many (most?) states, there is no requirement to obtain a license as a prerequisite of firearm's possession, so that is a bit of a conflict. Next, you'll notice that nothing is stated that you must have said "license" on your person should you be carrying a firearm within a school zone, only that you must have said license to possess that firearm. And then, what about states like Vermont, Alaska, and Arizona which have no requirement at all for their citizens to obtain a concealed carry permit (which, once again, is NOT mentioned in the federal statute) should they venture within the magic perimeter?

So here we have this scenario. A man is out for his morning walk, a portion of which happens to occur across the street from an elementary school, and a police officer takes notice of his openly carried sidearm. The officer approaches the man, utters a few words, then asks for an ID to which the man declines to offer.... because he doesn't have to show one and because his wallet is back at his house. No ID, openly carried sidearm, and a school across the street. And no "license to possess" a firearm because that is not a requirement in his state.

Interesting.

Even if a federal judge agrees that you are "licensed" by a State as a result of reciprocity agreements or constitutional carry, etc, you still do not meet the requirements for the exception in the federal law. If you read the GFSZA95 permit exception very carefully, there are three separate requirements that must all be individually met before the exception applies:

1: Licensed to do so by the state in which the school is in.

2: The law of the state in which the school is located requires that their law enforcement conduct a background check before an individual receives a license.

3. The law-enforcement authorities in the state in which the school is located actually conducted the required background check before the license was issued.


So, if you convince a federal judge you are "licensed" in another state as a result of reciprocity, that only satisfies the first criteria in the law. Criteria #2 and #3 are not met by reciprocity agreements or constitutional carry.


Also, if the judge rules during pre-trial that you do not qualify for the permit exception, it is highly unlikely the federal jury would ever know about your permit, as this "extraneous information" would be suppressed by the prosecution.

Eagle2009 said:

Even if a federal judge agrees that you are "licensed" by a State as a result of reciprocity agreements or constitutional carry, etc, you still do not meet the requirements for the exception in the federal law. If you read the GFSZA95 permit exception very carefully, there are three separate requirements that must all be individually met before the exception applies:

1: Licensed to do so by the state in which the school is in.

2: The law of the state in which the school is located requires that their law enforcement conduct a background check before an individual receives a license.

3. The law-enforcement authorities in the state in which the school is located actually conducted the required background check before the license was issued.


So, if you convince a federal judge you are "licensed" in another state as a result of reciprocity, that only satisfies the first criteria in the law. Criteria #2 and #3 are not met by reciprocity agreements or constitutional carry.


Also, if the judge rules during pre-trial that you do not qualify for the permit exception, it is highly unlikely the federal jury would ever know about your permit, as this "extraneous information" would be suppressed by the prosecution.

Click to expand...

I see #1 and #2 in the law. I don't see #3.

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;

Click to expand...

eye95 said:

I see #1 and #2 in the law. I don't see #3.


1: Licensed to do so by the state in which the school is in.

2: The law of the state in which the school is located requires that their law enforcement conduct a background check before an individual receives a license.

3. The law-enforcement authorities in the state in which the school is located actually conducted the required background check before the license was issued.

Click to expand...

I think #3 is understood, as any license issued contrary to law (the federally mandated state law requiring a background check before issuance) is not valid. Regardless, #2 is not met by anything other than a license physically issued by the state in which the school is located, therefore the definition of "licensed" doesn't matter, as it only pertains to satisfying part #1 of the permit exception in GFSZA95.

If the law requires a background check, that is sufficient to meet the condition in the law.

A person is given a physical license in State A.

That person is licensed by State B through reciprocity (not referring to the physical license).

The law in State B requires LE to verify that persons who obtain a license are qualified under the law to receive it (referring to the physical licenses issued within that State).

All the requirements of the law are met.

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;

Click to expand...

The state law must require that the state's law enforcement officers verify the individual is qualified before the individual receives the license. If you read state reciprocity laws, none of them require their law enforcement to verify that an individual is qualified before issuing the "license." The closest thing you will find is that a few states say in their reciprocity law something to the effect of "The State Attorney General shall conduct yearly research and maintain reciprocity with states having similar permit requirements." In such a state you MIGHT be able to argue that you were "individually verified" when that state's attorney general conducted their yearly research, and you MIGHT win, but ATF has expressed the opposite opinion.

Most states do not have any stipulation that their law enforcement conduct any sort of verification before reciprocity is granted. This is especially true in the states that blindly recognize all permits by statute, without any discretion given to the public officials. If we want to get really technical, some state's permits aren't issued by "law enforcement" and are instead issued by county court clerks or other administrative bodies. These permits don't even exempt the permit-holder in their own state.

Also, if you read the discharge restrictions in the law, a permit never qualifies as a discharge exception. A permit holder can never legally discharge a firearm in a school zone under any circumstance, ever.

Bottom line, the federal law is very poorly written, and needs to be amended. You would have no chance arguing any sort of "law enforcement verification" under most states' reciprocity laws, and you'd be facing an uphill battle in the few states that do require some sort of "yearly research" by their Attorney General before granting reciprocity.

The only way to fix this unconstitutional offense is to ensure EVERYONE is informed of their real duties an jurors:
- That the law in under trial just as much as person accused of breaking it, and you are obligated to uphold the Constitution first and foremost, regardless of any law impeding upon in and the rights it gives each citizen.
- If you, as a reasonable and intelligent citizen and peer of the person on trial judge a law to be unconstitutional, it is YOUR DUTY to vote NOT GUILTY, as the law should by any right be considered "null and void as of its passing" and "as though it had never been inacted," if it is in violation of the Constitution or a citizen's constitutional rights or responsibilities.
- Thus, there CANNOT have been any true offense, because the law cannot by rights have existed to for that person to violate it.
...
- Yes, this in fact does make each and every juror more powerful than every president, judge, and legislature, by having the right and duty to provide case law that such laws are unconstitutional, and will never be upheld or enforcable.

Get enough such instances down, and the law will either remain unenforced, because it cannot be punished, or else repealed, as shown to be unconstitutional.

~*'Phoenix'*~ said:

The only way to fix this unconstitutional offense is to ensure EVERYONE is informed of their real duties an jurors:
- That the law in under trial just as much as person accused of breaking it, and you are obligated to uphold the Constitution first and foremost, regardless of any law impeding upon in and the rights it gives each citizen.
- If you, as a reasonable and intelligent citizen and peer of the person on trial judge a law to be unconstitutional, it is YOUR DUTY to vote NOT GUILTY, as the law should by any right be considered "null and void as of its passing" and "as though it had never been inacted," if it is in violation of the Constitution or a citizen's constitutional rights or responsibilities.
- Thus, there CANNOT have been any true offense, because the law cannot by rights have existed to for that person to violate it.
...
- Yes, this in fact does make each and every juror more powerful than every president, judge, and legislature, by having the right and duty to provide case law that such laws are unconstitutional, and will never be upheld or enforcable.

Get enough such instances down, and the law will either remain unenforced, because it cannot be punished, or else repealed, as shown to be unconstitutional.

Click to expand...

+1.....Jury nullification.
http://www.personal.psu.edu/jph13/JuryNullification.html

Eagle2009 said:

The state law must require that the state's law enforcement officers verify the individual is qualified before the individual receives the license. If you read state reciprocity laws, none of them require their law enforcement to verify that an individual is qualified before issuing the "license."...

Click to expand...

You missed the key point. There is a distinction between "being licensed" to do something and being given a license. The first simply means having permission to do something that not all are allowed to do. The second refers to being handed a piece of paper stating that you have the permission. The background check only has to be required by law in the State in which the school is located and only before that physical permission slip is handed out. The law does not say that the law in the State from which the carrier originates must require background checks, nor does it say that the carrier has to have had a background check.

Read the law carefully. There is a seeming loophole there that could get a defendant acquitted. Now, I am not advocating that someone deliberately carry in a school zone, relying on this flaw in the law. If someone wants to test the law, I'd recommend going after its constitutionality. However, I ain't volunteering to be the guinea pig on either challenge to the law.

Anyone? Bueller?

eye95 said:

You missed the key point. There is a distinction between "being licensed" to do something and being given a license.

Click to expand...

I understand your point, and if the GFSZA95 law only required you be "licensed" by the state, and did not have the additional requirements about law-enforcement verification, it would be a totally different situation than it is. Unfortunately, this is not the case, as the current law does contain the three requirements I outlined earlier, which are not met by reciprocity agreements.

Eagle2009 said:

I understand your point, and if the GFSZA95 law only required you be "licensed" by the state, and did not have the additional requirements about law-enforcement verification, it would be a totally different situation than it is. Unfortunately, this is not the case, as the current law does contain the three requirements I outlined earlier, which are not met by reciprocity agreements.

Click to expand...

No, the requirement for the law to require the background check is for a physical license given by the State in which the school is located, not the permission to carry that results from reciprocity, so clearly, you still are missing the point that I am making.

NavyLT said:

And the ATF agrees that the requirements are not met by reciprocity agreements.

Click to expand...

And the ATF is not the final arbiter of what the law means. The courts will be.

I don't ask cops what the law means. I don't trust that they know. They have too often proven that they do not.

I don't know if you all have seen these maps yet. They are fairly new, and show the Gun Free School Zones in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

https://sites.google.com/site/ncagfsza95/milwaukeegfsza95.pdf?attredirects=0&d=1

Please note that it is impossible to stay within the city limits and navigate either from the southern-most point to the northern-most point or from the eastern-most point to the western-most point without passing through a DFSZ.

Therefore, if you haven't jumped through the legal hoops or, worse, there are no hoops that make carry in a DFSZ doable legally, you have no practical right to carry within the city.

Wisconsin law allows open-carry, however they are one of the two states that do not have CCW permits. Therefore, the people of Wisconsin have no legal remedy.

Here is an internal Milwaukee Police Department E-mail obtained by an open records act request discussing how they can and will use GFSZA to arrest open carriers who stray into the zones.

https://sites.google.com/site/ncagfsza95/milwaukeepdtalkgfsza.pdf?attredirects=0&d=1

Federal Gun Free School Zones mapped in:


Dallas, Texas:
https://sites.google.com/site/ncagfsza95/dallasgfsza2.jpg


Cheyenne, Wyoming:
https://sites.google.com/site/ncagfsza95/cheyennegfsza.jpg


Anchorage, Alaska:
https://sites.google.com/site/ncagfsza95/anchoragegfsza.jpg


Boise, Idaho
https://sites.google.com/site/ncagfsza95/boisemetrogfsza.jpg



Boise, Idaho
https://sites.google.com/site/ncagfsza95/boiseclosegfsza.jpg



Billings, Montana
https://sites.google.com/site/ncagfsza95/billingsgfsza.jpg

Are we to presume that those are school zones Eagle2009? You offer no explanation.

IMHO - it would be materially more beneficial to provide a link, rather than take up so much space.
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/member.php?58542-Eagle2009

There have been many new maps created showing the Federal Gun Free School Zones in



Burlington, Vermont

Dallas, Texas

Cheyenne, Wyoming

Afton, Wyoming

Casper, Wyoming

Etna, Wyoming

Thayne, Wyoming

Anchorage, Alaska

Boise, Idaho

Billings, Montana


https://sites.google.com/site/ncagfsza95/maps