PWC Parks near schools

JohnM15A · Mar 23, 2013

I have been OCing for about two weeks now, Famous Dave's, Wegmans, Veterans Park, Daks

, and all around. Not many notice. But there is one park that is basically a community park that is labeled as a PWC park called Rippon Park. Problem is that it is just across the street from a school. My guestimation is about 200' to the property line but the buildings are another 300' up the hill. I know OC can't be within 1000' so does this apply? It's not like I'm walking down the street as a pedestrian...

thebigsd · Mar 23, 2013

JohnM15A said:
I have been OCing for about two weeks now, Famous Dave's, Wegmans, Veterans Park, Daks , and all around. Not many notice. But there is one park that is basically a community park that is labeled as a PWC park called Rippon Park. Problem is that it is just across the street from a school. My guestimation is about 200' to the property line but the buildings are another 300' up the hill. I know OC can't be within 1000' so does this apply? It's not like I'm walking down the street as a pedestrian...

Do you have a CHP? If so, then you may carry within 1000'. If not, this is a federal law unlikely to be enforced at the local level unless you are otherwise drawing attention to yourself.

peter nap · Mar 23, 2013

thebigsd said:
Do you have a CHP? If so, then you may carry within 1000'. If not, this is a federal law unlikely to be enforced at the local level unless you are otherwise drawing attention to yourself.

Yep!

color of law · Mar 23, 2013

thebigsd said:
Do you have a CHP? If so, then you may carry within 1000'. If not, this is a federal law unlikely to be enforced at the local level unless you are otherwise drawing attention to yourself.

I must disagree.

Some will tell you that federal law - 18 USC 922(q) disallows open carry in school zones. And the statute does say that.

But, since Congress amended 18 USC 922(q) there has been two courts that I know of that has upheld Congresses changes See United States v. Dorsey, 418 F.3d 1038 (9th Cir. 2005); United States v. Danks, 221 F.3d 1037 (8th Cir. 1999). Both are contrary to Lopez.

Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining & Reclamation Assn., Inc., 452 U.S. 264 (1981), United States v. Lopez, 514 U. S. 549 (1995) and Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005) all made it clear that under the Commerce Clause Congress is required to show a tangible link to commerce, not a mere conceivable rational relation. “imply because Congress may conclude that a particular activity substantially affects interstate commerce does not necessarily make it so.” See Lopez, supra, at 557, n. 2 (quoting Hodel, supra, at 311 (Rehnquist, J., concurring in judgment).

The Lopez Court made it clear that the Commerce Clause would not carry the day when it comes to carrying a gun in a school zone.

The possession of a gun in a local school zone is in no sense an economic activity that might, through repetition elsewhere, substantially affect any sort of interstate commerce. Respondent was a local student at a local school; there is no indication that he had recently moved in interstate commerce, and there is no requirement that his possession of the firearm have any concrete tie to interstate commerce.

To uphold the Government's contentions here, we would have to pile inference upon inference in a manner that would bid fair to convert congressional authority under the Commerce Clause to a general police power of the sort retained by the States. Admittedly, some of our prior cases have taken long steps down that road, giving great deference to congressional action. See supra, at 556-558. The broad language in these opinions has suggested the possibility of additional expansion, but we decline here to proceed any further. To do so would require us to conclude that the Constitution's enumeration of powers does not presuppose something not enumerated, cf. Gibbons v. Ogden, supra, at 195, and that there never will be a distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local, cf. Jones & Laughlin Steel, supra, at 30. This we are unwilling to do.

Click to expand...

I suggest you read Lopez yourself.

peter nap · Mar 23, 2013

color of law said:
I must disagree.

Some will tell you that federal law - 18 USC 922(q) disallows open carry in school zones. And the statute does say that.

But, since Congress amended 18 USC 922(q) there has been two courts that I know of that has upheld Congresses changes See United States v. Dorsey, 418 F.3d 1038 (9th Cir. 2005); United States v. Danks, 221 F.3d 1037 (8th Cir. 1999). Both are contrary to Lopez.

Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining & Reclamation Assn., Inc., 452 U.S. 264 (1981), United States v. Lopez, 514 U. S. 549 (1995) and Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005) all made it clear that under the Commerce Clause Congress is required to show a tangible link to commerce, not a mere conceivable rational relation. “imply because Congress may conclude that a particular activity substantially affects interstate commerce does not necessarily make it so.” See Lopez, supra, at 557, n. 2 (quoting Hodel, supra, at 311 (Rehnquist, J., concurring in judgment).

The Lopez Court made it clear that the Commerce Clause would not carry the day when it comes to carrying a gun in a school zone.

The possession of a gun in a local school zone is in no sense an economic activity that might, through repetition elsewhere, substantially affect any sort of interstate commerce. Respondent was a local student at a local school; there is no indication that he had recently moved in interstate commerce, and there is no requirement that his possession of the firearm have any concrete tie to interstate commerce.

I suggest you read Lopez yourself.

~~Great post....now for the CHiPpers to start having the vapors!~~

JohnM15A · Mar 23, 2013

I have a CHP but it was my understanding that you could only have a handgun on school property while in the car, concealed, and while dropping off or picking up a child from the school, all other instances a no-no within the 1000'.

TFred · Mar 23, 2013

And I'll chip in (ha ha see what I did there, Peter Nap?) with my usual drivel that the Virginia CHP does not satisfy the requirement of the GFSZA, because it does not license one to carry a firearm. It merely exempts one from the law against carrying a handgun in a concealed manner.

I feel better now.

TFred

TFred · Mar 23, 2013

JohnM15A said:
I have a CHP but it was my understanding that you could only have a handgun on school property while in the car, concealed, and while dropping off or picking up a child from the school, all other instances a no-no within the 1000'.

We're talking about the Federal Gun Free School Zone Act here, not Virginia law.

The GFSZA doesn't care about any state law, so while you may not be in violation of Virginia law, you will be in violation of Federal law.

TFred

Green: State Law
Blue: Federal Law

peter nap · Mar 23, 2013

TFred said:
And I'll chip in (ha ha see what I did there, Peter Nap?) with my usual drivel that the Virginia CHP does not satisfy the requirement of the GFSZA, because it does not license one to carry a firearm. It merely exempts one from the law against carrying a handgun in a concealed manner.

I feel better now.

TFred

I saw TFred. You'd better be careful or you'll get to be a bigger smart azz than me.:banana:

PWC Parks near schools

JohnM15A

Regular Member

thebigsd

Founder's Club Member

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate

color of law

Accomplished Advocate

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate

JohnM15A

Regular Member

TFred

Regular Member

TFred

Regular Member

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate