• 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.

la crosse gfsz charge

Status
Not open for further replies.

Captain Nemo

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2010
Messages
1,029
Location
Somewhere, Wisconsin, USA
federal constitutional rights

Summary of
Constitutional Rights, Powers and Duties
Discussions of rights are sometimes confused concerning what are and are not rights of the people or powers of government or the duties of each. This is an attempt to summarize the rights, powers, and duties recognized or established in the U.S. Constitution, in Common Law as it existed at the time the U.S. Constitution was adopted, or as implied therein. Not included are certain "internal" rights and powers that pertain to the various elements of government within each level with respect to each other.

Personhood:[1]
"Persons" are one of the two main classes which are the subject of rights, powers, and duties, the other being "citizens". Persons may be "natural" or "corporate". "Citizens" are a subclass of "natural persons". Only persons have standing as parties under due process. Each government has the power to define what is and is not a "person" within its jurisdiction, subject to certain restrictions of Common Law and the Constitution, the 15th Amendment to which requires that it not exclude anyone based on race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Under Common Law existing at the time of the adoption of the U.S. Constitution, "natural personhood" was considered to begin at natural birth and end with the cessation of the heartbeat. But technology has created a new situation, opening the way for statute or court decision to extend this definition and set the conditions under which personhood begins and ends.

Each government may also establish, within its jurisdiction, "corporate persons" such as governmental entities, associations, corporations, or partnerships, in addition to the Common Law "natural" persons, but the "personhood" of such corporate entities is not created by the government. Its corporate personhood derives from the personhood of its members. Corporate persons must be aggregates of natural persons.

Under Common Law, natural persons include only human beings, but provides a basis for inclusion of entities that are sufficiently like human beings in their behavior to be indistinguishable for legal purposes, such as aliens, androids, or genetically enhanced animals, which have interests, an ability to reason, and an ability to communicate. This would exclude, however, establishment of other things as persons, such as inanimate objects, which have no ability to represent themselves under due process. Inclusion of such inanimate objects as parties to civil due process, in effect making them "persons", has found its way into the U.S. legal system, unconstitutionally, through recent seizure/forfeiture statutes.

Although not a well-developed area, there is also a basis for excluding entities which, although they are born to human beings, lack attributes which would enable them to be functionally human, such as some minimal level of cognitive capacity, but such beings must be considered natural persons as the default unless proven otherwise through due process.

Citizenship:
Citizenship is the attribute of persons who, as members of the polity, have certain privileges and duties in addition to those they have as persons. Citizens include those born on U.S. or State territory or naturalized according to law.

Natural Rights:
The classic definition of "natural rights" are "life, liberty, and property", but these need to be expanded somewhat. They are rights of "personhood", not "citizenship". These rights are not all equally basic, but form a hierarchy of derivation, with those listed later being generally derived from those listed earlier.

Personal Security (Life):
(1) Not to be killed.

(2) Not to be injured or abused.

Personal Liberty:
(3) To move freely.

(4) To assemble peaceably.

(5) To keep and bear arms.[18]

(6) To assemble in an independent well-disciplined[13] militia.

(7) To communicate with the world.

(8) To express or publish one's opinions or those of others.

(9) To practice one's religion.

(10) To be secure in one's person, house, papers, vehicle[14], and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures.

(11) To enjoy privacy in all matters in which the rights of others are not violated.[7]

Private Property:
(12) To acquire, have and use the means necessary to exercise the above natural rights and pursue happiness, specifically including:

(1) A private residence, from which others may be excluded.

(2) Tools needed for one's livelihood.

(3) Personal property, which others may be denied the use of.

(4) Arms suitable for personal and community defense.

Non-natural rights of personhood, created by social contract:
(1) To enter into contracts, and thereby acquire contractual rights, to secure the means to exercise the above natural rights.[1,15]

(2) To enjoy equally the rights, privileges and protections of personhood as established by law.

(3) To petition an official for redress of grievances and get action thereon in accordance with law, subject to the resources available thereto.

(4) To petition a legislator and get consideration thereof, subject to resources available thereto.

(5) To petition a court for redress of grievances and get a decision thereon, subject to resources available thereto.

(6) Not to have one's natural rights individually disabled except through due process of law, which includes:

(a) In criminal prosecutions:

(1) Not to be charged for a major crime but by indictment by a Grand Jury, except while serving in the military, or while serving in the Militia during time of war or public danger.

(2) Not to be charged more than once for the same offense.

(3) Not to be compelled to testify against oneself.

(4) Not to have excessive bail required.

(5) To be tried by an impartial jury from the state and district in which the events took place.

(6) To have a jury of at least six for a misdemeanor, and at least twelve for a felony.[1]

(7) To a speedy trial.

(8) To a public trial.

(9) To have the assistance of counsel of one's choice.

(10) To be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation.

(11) To be confronted with the witnesses against one.

(12) To have compulsory process for obtaining favorable witnesses.

(13) To have each charge proved beyond a reasonable doubt.[1]

(14) To have a verdict by a unanimous vote of the jury, which shall not be held to account for its verdict.[1]

(15) To have the jury decide on both the facts of the case and the constitutionality, jurisdiction, and applicability of the law.[1]

(16) Upon conviction, to have each disablement separately and explicitly proven as justified and necessary based on the facts and verdict.[1]

(17) To have a sentence which explicitly states all disablements, and is final in that once rendered no further disablements may be imposed for the same offense.[1]

(18) Not to have a cruel or unusual punishment inflicted upon oneself.

(b) In civil cases:

(1) To trial by an impartial jury from the state and district in which the events took place[1] where the issue in question is either a natural right[1] or property worth more than $20.

(2) In taking of one's property for public use, to be given just compensation therefor.

(3) To have compulsory process for obtaining favorable witnesses.[1]

(c) In all cases:

(1) To have process only upon legal persons able to defend themselves, either natural persons or corporate persons that are represented by a natural person as agent, and who are present, competent, and duly notified, except, in cases of disappearance or abandonment, after public notice and a reasonable period of time.[1]

(2) Not to be ordered to give testimony or produce evidence beyond what is necessary to the proper conduct of the process.[1]

Non-natural rights or citizenship, created by social contract:
(1) To enjoy equally the rights and privileges of citizenship as established by law.

(2) To vote in elections that are conducted fairly and honestly, by secret ballot.

(3) To exercise general police powers to defend the community and enforce the laws, subject to legal orders of higher-ranking officials.[17]

(4) To receive militia training.[7]

Disabilities of minority: [1]
Certain of the above rights are restricted, or "disabled", for minors, but the definition of who is a minor and the extent to which each of these rights are disabled for minors, is limited to the jurisdiction over which each government has general legislative authority, which for the U.S. government, is "federal ground" (see below). Minors are the only class of persons whose rights may be disabled without a need to justify the disablement as arising from the need to resolve a conflict with the rights of others, either through statute or due process. The disablement consists of the assignment of a power to supervise the exercise of the rights under the headings of "liberty" and "property" listed above to a guardian, by default the parents, who acts as agent of the State for the purpose of nurturing the minor. The disability is normally removed by statute providing for removal when a certain age, such as 18, or condition, such as marriage, is attained. The disabilities of minority can also be removed earlier by court order or, if statute allows, extended beyond the usual statutory expiration by court order in cases of incompetence. The right to vote is not included among the disabilities of minority, but is defined separately by law, so that removal of the disabilities of minority does not in itself affect having the right to vote.

Constitutional duties of persons under U.S. or State jurisdiction:[7]

(1) To obey laws that are constitutional and applied within their proper jurisdiction and according to their intent.

(2) To comply with the terms of legal contracts to which one is a party.

(3) To tell the truth under oath.

Constitutional duties of citizens under U.S. or State jurisdiction:[7]

(1) To preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution.[6]

(2) To help enforce laws and practices that are constitutional and applied within their proper jurisdiction and according to their intent, and to resist those which are not.

(3) To serve on juries, and to render verdicts according to the constitutionality, jurisdiction, and applicability of statute and common law, and the facts of the case.

Constitutional duties of able-bodied citizens under U.S. or State jurisdiction:[7]

(1) To defend the U.S. or State, individually and through service in the Militia.

(2) To keep and bear arms.[18]

(3) To exercise general police powers to defend the community and enforce the laws, subject to legal orders of higher-ranking officials when present.[17]

Powers delegated to U.S. (National) Government:
(1) Exclusive powers

(1) To lay and collect import duties.[8]

(2) To pay the debts of the U.S. Government.

(3) To regulate commerce with foreign nations and Indian Tribes.

(4) To regulate commerce among the States.[2]

(5) To regulate immigration.[7]

(6) To establish a uniform rule of naturalization.

(7) To establish uniform laws on bankruptcy throughout the United States.

(8) To coin money and regulate its value and that of foreign coin, and to issue bills of credit.

(9) To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States.[3]

(10) To fix the standard of weights and measures.

(11) To provide and regulate postal services.

(12) To establish protection for intellectual property, including patent, copyright, and trademark rights.

(13) To constitute lower national courts.

(14) To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the laws of nations.[3]

(15) To declare war, authorize warlike activities by other than the armed forces, and make rules concerning captures.

(16) To raise, support and regulate the armed forces.

(17) To govern what part of the Militia shall be employed in the service of the United States.

(18) To exercise general Legislation[9] over federal ground, which is limited to federal territories and districts, land purchased from states with the consent of their legislatures, U.S. flag vessels on the high seas, and the grounds of U.S. embassies abroad.

(19) To guarantee a republican form[12] of government to the States.[3]

(20) To enter into a treaty, alliance, or confederation with a foreign state.

(21) To declare the punishment for treason.[3]

(22) To prescribe the manner in which the acts, records, and judicial proceedings of each state shall be proved to other states and what should be done about them.

(23) To admit new states into the Union.

(24) To make laws necessary and proper for executing the powers delegated to the U.S. government.

(2) Pre-emptive but non-exclusive powers

(1) To provide for the common defense and general welfare.

(2) To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the laws, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions.[16]

(3) To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia.

(4) To prescribe the times, places and manner of holding elections for members of Congress, except the places for electing senators.

(5) To conduct a census every ten years.

(3) Non-pre-emptive non-exclusive powers

(1) To lay and collect excise taxes on commerce or income taxes on persons.[8]

(2) To borrow money.

Restrictions of the powers of the national Government:
(1) No exercise of powers not delegated to it by the Constitution.

(2) No payment from the Treasury except under appropriations made by law.

(3) Excises and duties must be uniform throughout the United States.

(4) Shall pass no tax or duty on articles exported from any state.[5]

(5) No appointment of a senator or representative to any civil office which was created while he was a member of Congress or for which the amount of compensation was increased during that period.

(6) No preferences to the ports of one state over another in regulation or tax collection.

(7) No titles of nobility shall be granted by the U.S. government, or permitted to be granted to government officials by foreign states.

(8) May not protect a State against domestic violence without the request of its legislature, unless it cannot be convened, in which case, without the consent of its executive.

(9) U.S. courts do not have jurisdiction over suits against a state by citizens of another state or foreign country.

Powers delegated to State Governments:
(1) Exclusive powers

(1) To appoint persons to fill vacancies in the U.S. Congress from that state and to hold special elections to replace them. State executive may make temporary appointments if state legislature in recess and until they reconvene, when they shall appoint a temporary replacement.

(2) To appoint the officers of its Militia.[11]

(3) To conduct the training of its Militia.[12]

(2) Non-exclusive powers[4]

(1) To prescribe the times, places and manner of holding elections for members of Congress.[10]

Restrictions of the powers of the State Governments:
(1) State constitutions and laws may not conflict with any provision of the U.S. Constitution or U.S. laws pursuant to it.[7]

(2) May not exercise powers not delegated to the State government by the State Constitution.[7]

(3) May not make anything but gold or silver coin a tender in payment of debts.

(4) May not pass a law impairing the obligation of contracts.

(5) May not grant a title of nobility.

(6) May not collect imposts or duties on imports or exports without consent of Congress, except fees necessary to cover the costs of inspections and paid to the U.S. Treasury.[8]

(7) May not lay a duty on tonnage.

(8) May not keep troops or ships of war in time of peace or make war without the consent of Congress, unless actually invaded and in imminent danger that does not admit of delay.

(9) May not make a compact or agreement with another state of the U.S. or with a foreign state without the consent of Congress.

Duties of the State Governments:
(1) Must provide a republican form[12] of government to their citizens.[7]

(2) Must conduct honest and fair elections, by secret ballot.[7]

(3) Must give full faith and credit to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state, and recognize the privileges and immunities granted thereby.

(4) Must extradict a person charged with a crime in another state to that state.

(5) Must organize and train their militias.[7]

Restrictions of the powers of all Governments:
(1) Shall not disable any natural or constitutional right without due process of law, and then only to the extent necessary to avoid infringing the rights of others.

(2) Shall not deny any person within its jurisdiction equal protection of the laws.

(3) Shall not suspend habeas corpus, except in case of rebellion of invasion and the public safety may require it.

(4) Shall not issue a search warrant but on probably cause, supported by an oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or things to be seized.

(5) Shall not arrest members of Congress, except for treason, felony, or breach of the peace, while their house is in session.

(6) Shall not question a member of Congress on anything he says during a speech or debate in his house.

(7) Shall not pass any bill of attainder or ex post facto law.

(8) Shall allow no slavery or involuntary servitude except as punishment for a crime of which the party shall have been duly convicted.

(9) Shall not deny or abridge the right to vote to any person on account of race, color, previous condition of servitude, sex, for failure to pay any tax, or on account of age if older than 18.

Some arguably needed national powers:
(1) To regulate the manufacture, distribution, operation, and disposition of aircraft and spacecraft, the regulation of their crews, and the definition and punishment of crimes committed on U.S. registered aircraft or spacecraft or on aircraft or spacecraft operating in U.S. airspace.

(2) To regulate cabled or wireless communications beyond a distance of 1 kilometer.

(3) To regulate the production, distribution, and use of nuclear energy, and electric energy transmitted more than 1 kilometer.

(4) To limit tort liability on commerce and commercial articles subject to U.S. regulation of their manufacture.

(5) To pre-emptively pass and enforce laws needed to conserve wildlife and natural resources, to protect the climate and natural environment, to prevent an excess of population, and to regulate public health and workplace safety.

(6) To provide for the punishment of abuses of power by any official, agent, or employee of, or contractor for, any institution of government, and specifically any violations of the Constitution and laws pursuant thereto.

(7) To provide for the punishment of abuses of the natural rights of persons by other persons, in the event that those abuses, if the occurred on state ground, are not prosecuted by a State government.

(8) To define "due process" to include the elements given above which are not now explicit in the U.S. Constitution.

(9) To define the arms to which persons have a right to keep and bear as including "all those weapons which may be carried by one person and which might be useful or necessary to defend oneself or the community, except weapons of mass destruction such as bombs, heavy missiles or artillery, or biological, chemical, or nuclear agents which may cause lasting injury or death."

(10) To make explicit that only natural persons or corporate persons composed of natural persons may be the subject of due process in any civil or criminal proceeding.

NOTES:
[1] This is established in Common Law at the time the U.S. Constitution was adopted, but is not explicit in the U.S. Constitution.

[2] Originally, "commerce" meant only transfers of goods or services for a valuable consideration, so that "interstate" commerce would not include interstate migration, carrying across a state border of one's own possessions that one intends to keep, the sending across a state border of a gift or inheritance, nor include articles which had not yet crossed a state border, or articles which had "come to rest" with the completion of the transfer. It would not include manufacturing, local sales, or things that are "part of an aggregate" of interstate commerce, or things that might "affect" interstate commerce. Note also that the power to regulate does not include the power to criminally prosecute violations of regulations, but only to seize property through civil process.

[3] These are the only provisions that allow federal criminal laws jurisdiction outside federal ground.

[4] These powers, if not exercised by the State, revert to the people.

[5] This provision would seem to forbid taxes on interstate commerce if export to another state of the U.S. is included, leaving only intrastate commerce or commerce on federal ground subject to excise taxes or duties, although interstate commerce can otherwise be regulated.

[6] This means obeying constitutional laws and practices, and resisting unconstitutional ones.

[7] This is not clearly stated, but implied.

[8] The power to tax is not the power to regulate or license, and vice versa. That is why the powers to tax and to regulate are separately specified. With one exception, which is never used (in Art. 1 Sec. 10), no allowance is made for the charging of fees to cover the costs of regulation, even though this has become a common practice, in violation of the Constitution.

[9] This use of the word "Legislation" is a term of art which grants general powers within its jurisdiction, including powers of criminal and civil law that a State might exercise within its jurisdiction, but unlike a State in that a State would be restricted by a state constitution granting it only certain powers. This is a major gap in the Constitution. Although it applies only to federal ground, it also does not make clear what are the limitations on such legislative power, other than the natural and constitutional rights of persons, and so has been interpreted to allow anything that does not violate those rights. There is a need for a federal sub-constitution, similar to a typical state constitution, that applies to federal ground.

[10] The wording suggests that the States have the power, but allows the Congress to pre-empt it.

[11] But this implies that if the State fails to appoint such officers, local militias are left to elect their own, which was the established Common Law practice at the time the U.S. Constitution was adopted. But "according to the discipline prescribed by Congress". This means Congress can direct, but not forbid it, and implies that, in the absence of any training conducted by the State, local militias are left to organize and train themselves, which was the established Common Law practice established at the time the U.S. Constitution was adopted.

[12] The term used is "form" of government, but the Framers seem to have meant substance as well, and that is reasonably implied.

[13] The original term was "well-regulated", but this is what was meant. Militias were originally local and independent of official authority, and it was intended that although they be subject to official authority when called into service by such authority, that they also be able to convene and operate independently when not.

[14] "Vehicle" was not explicitly included, but implied as an "effect".

[15] This is needed to allow persons not only to have rights but the means to exercise them, and also to acquire those means if they do not already have them, without which the right would be unduly burdened. However, beyond this right, the community has the general power to restrict contracts for reasons of public policy and not just to avoid conflicts with the rights of others, so that there is not a general "right" of contract, but a "default privilege" of doing so, subject to law, for contracts that do not involve securing the means to exercise their natural rights.

[16] This is worded as "to execute the Laws of the Union", thus allowing States to also call forth their Militias to execute their own laws.

[17] The exercise of general police powers is both a right of citizens, and a duty of able-bodied ones. All citizens are policemen, although ordinary citizens may be outranked by professional police officers when such officers are present in a law enforcement situation.

[18] Likewise, the keeping and bearing of arms, while a right of persons, is also a duty of able-bodied citizens.

FURTHER COMMENT:
Note that there is no right to marry or bear children included among any of the rights listed above. It is not a "natural" right, because natural rights are only rights of individuals, and exercise of a "right" to marry, without the consent of the other, would be an assault. Since consent is required, it is a matter of contract, and contractual rights are created by the community, even if it is a "community" of only two persons. Since the community is normally a larger polity, and since all legal contracts are agreements not only between the contracting parties, but also with the entire community, therefore the community has the power to regulate marriage and childbirth, and has exercised that power since time immemorial, for the benefit of the community.

Note also that the fundamental unit of the social contract is the local community or village. These may aggregate into a larger "state" or "federal union", but the basis is agreement among those who are in direct contact with one another.

It is sometimes thought that "the Constitution" consists only of the written document. This is not so. The title "The Constitution of the United States" was added after the document was adopted, but "constitution" meant the "basic legal order", and the Constitution consists of both the written document and the common law at the time the document was adopted, which is here referred to as the Common Law in caps. Now, the written document does supersede the Common Law where they might be in conflict, but it does not replace it, and courts must refer to the Common Law for guidance where the written document is silent or ambiguous.

In addition to the written document and the Common Law, the Constitution also includes Treaties, which, although they are valid only insofar as they are not in conflict with the written Constitution, are superior to both the Common Law and to State constitutions and laws, to the extent that those might be in conflict with the Treaties. Thus, some of the Treaties that have been adopted extend and clarify some of the rights, powers, and duties provided in the written Constitution. For example, that is how "federal ground" is extended to include coastal waters out to a certain distance from shore, and the grounds of U.S. embassies abroad, and how the rights of the people are amplified by the Charter of the United Nations and by various bilateral and multilateral Treaties that extend civil and commercial rights to U.S. citizens abroad.

The following diagram can help clarify the relationship among the various elements of law in the U.S. legal system. Each element is superior to the one below it, although state constitutions are derived from their people, not from the U.S. Constitution. Although not shown, each box also includes the body of writings and recorded speeches of the legislators, diplomats, and judges who wrote the constitutions, treaties, laws, and court decisions, which clarify their intent, and which must be accepted as the basis of interpreting the words when there is confusion or dispute over their meaning.

Constitution Society, 6900 San Pedro #147-230, San Antonio, TX 78216, 210/224-2868
 

Beretta-m9

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2010
Messages
110
Location
usa
While I disagree with the infringing laws, I still obey them. Why? Because I don't have an unlimited amount of money to file lawsuits against them. I have written my representatives already on repealing those laws that conflict with the state and federal Constitutions.

then why are you busting my balls about it ? jesus some people just got nothing better to do or what ?
 

protias

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
7,308
Location
SE, WI
then why are you busting my balls about it ? jesus some people just got nothing better to do or what ?
Because you are saying to do something that is technically illegal. However unjust the laws may be, I still follow them.

And yes, "I have nothing better to do" because for the past two years, I haven't been on here trying help others learn, as well as learn more myself. :rolleyes:
 

Beretta-m9

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2010
Messages
110
Location
usa
Because you are saying to do something that is technically illegal. However unjust the laws may be, I still follow them.

And yes, "I have nothing better to do" because for the past two years, I haven't been on here trying help others learn, as well as learn more myself. :rolleyes:

your out of your mind. I said no 15 year old should have a gun and then everyone goes onto me about how it's not in the constitution. but it IS THE LAW !!!!!! I SAID THAT not everyone arguing with me.

Then I will ask the question. Where in the US or WI Constitution does it say age as a restriction? Which is the higher law, Constitution or law?

and your telling me I AM the one saying to break the law ? you must be mental.

I think you need to take a minute go back read your post and mine and see that your just contradicting yourself, I stand by what I said and my point, which is it is illegal for a 15 year old or anyone under 18 to posses a weapon regardless of what the constitution says it is against the law. So please AGAIN dont bust my balls for the lack of something better to do even more so if your just gonna contradict your own story.
 
Last edited:

protias

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
7,308
Location
SE, WI
When you want to have a civilized conversation, we can continue. Until then, I will not participate.
 

HankT

State Researcher
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
6,215
Location
Invisible Mode
he's 15, he should not have a gun at all. I don't think he should be let off from anything, no matter if gfsz law is unconstitional or not HE'S 15. Parents should be in trouble right along side the kid. Where did he get this gun and why don't his parents know about it ?

I agree, most definitely. 15-year olds, as a group, cannot handle the responsibility of carrying a gun. This kid is a prime example of that inability. There are laws in most states specifically outlawing this. And the few states where it's vague should have effective laws instituted to prohibit carry by 15-year olds.

Assuming the parents actually own the gun, they're pretty much
goofs with a gun
for letting an adolescent get a hold of it.



“Even though the student made a very, very poor decision, we have no indication that he intended to do any harm to anyone,” Onalaska Superintendent John Burnett said Tuesday. “His intent was to show off what he had in his possession.”

What a dope this kid is. Somebody, make sure this kid doesn't have access to guns. Hmm, that's an interesting question--just how long should he be mandated to stay away from any guns?
 

Bill Starks

State Researcher
Joined
Dec 27, 2007
Messages
4,304
Location
Nortonville, KY, USA
Speaking of school zones...(Title 18 U.S.C. §922(q)

Title 18 U.S.C. §922(q) School Zones

per this thread: http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?84531-Title-18-U.S.C.-%A7922%28q%29-School-Zones



In essence, Title 18 U.S.C Part 1 Chapter 44 Section 922(q) known as the Federal Gun Free School Zones Act of 1995 currently on the books, effectively bans all concealed carry reciprocity agreements between States, by making it illegal for any person to have a functional firearm within 1000 Feet of the property line of any Elementary or High School in our country, with very few exceptions.

Title 18 Part 1 Chapter 44 Section 922 (unlawful acts)
United States Code - TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - PART I - CRIMES - CHAPTER 44 - FIREARMS - section 922

BATFE Opinion (2002)
on Reciprocity: http://www.handgunlaw.us/documents/batf_school_zone.pdfThe original version of this law, passed in 1990, was struck down by the US Supreme Court in "United States v Lopez (1995)," because Congress had not claimed a connection to "interstate commerce," however the second version, the one which is currently on the books, was upheld as recently as 2005 by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in the case United States v Dorsey.

One exception to this law, is if the firearm is unloaded and in a locked container.

A second exception is having the firearm "on private property not part of school grounds." Remember, the roads/highways/sidewalks are not private property, so this exception does not apply while driving on public streets.

A third exception, is if the person possessing the firearm has a concealed carry permit issued by the State in which the school zone is located. This means that as the law is written, and as it has been interpreted by BATFE, if a person with a concealed carry permit is in any State other than the State that physically issued their permit, and they drive within 1000 feet of any K-12 school (which is impossible to avoid) with an unlocked gun, they are committing a federal crime. Violation of this law is punishable by up to five (5) years in federal prison and a conviction will bar a person from owning firearms for life


There was even a case in 2000 (United States v Tait) where an Alabama concealed carry permit holder was prosecuted under this federal law, for carrying a firearm in Alabama. The prosecution claimed that Mr. Tait's Alabama permit did not exempt him from the Federal Gun Free School Zones Act, even in Alabama.

In another case, United States v Nieves-Castaño, a woman was actually convicted under the Federal Gun Free School Zones Act for having a firearm in her home! Her home (a third floor apartment) just happened to be within 1000 feet of a school and it happened to be public property (a housing project). She was not a student, and her conduct had absolutely nothing to do with the school. This conviction was upheld by the Federal Appeals Court for the First Circuit in 2007.

Ironically, law enforcement officers carrying a handgun under LEOSA are not exempt from the GFSZA, unless they are acting in their official capacity. This means that a law enforcement officer, carrying under LEOSA while on vacation with their family, can not drive within 1000 feet of a school without risking five years in federal prison.

Also note, there is no exception in the law for the discharge of a firearm by anyone other than a law enforcement officer acting in their official capacity on public property while in a school zone (within 1000 feet of the property line of any K-12 school), under any circumstance. This could conceivably be an issue if you're the victim of a violent crime while on public property such as roads, sidewalks, fair grounds, city parks, etc.


Many people think this law has never been enforced. Unfortunately this is not the case. This revised law has indeed been enforced, against several people, below are a few examples:

United States v Danks (1999) USA v. Jordan Danks

United States v Tait (2000) (Attempted prosecution of an Alabama permit holder) 202 F3d 1320 United States v. Tait | OpenJurist

United States v Haywood (2003) UNITED STATES of America v. Ira HAYWOOD, Appellant.

United States v Dorsey (2005) (Upheld the revised law as constitutional) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Nikos Delano DORSEY, Defendant-Appellant.

United States v Smith (2005) USA v. Smith This case says that the mere movement of the gun's component parts in Interstate Commerce is enough to satisfy the jurisdictional element needed for conviction.

United States v Nieves-Castaño (2007) UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Belen NIEVES-CASTAÑO, Defendant, Appellant. A woman was convicted for having a gun in her home; which happened to be within 1000ft of a school.

United States v Weekes (2007) [UNITED]UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. PHINEHAS WEEKES, Appellant STATES OF AMERICA v. PHINEHAS WEEKES[/url]

United States v Benally (2007) http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-10th-circuit/1364658.html

United States v Cruz-Rodriguez (2008) Untitled #1668141
 
Last edited:

BROKENSPROKET

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2010
Messages
2,199
Location
Trempealeau County
I agree, most definitely. 15-year olds, as a group, cannot handle the responsibility of carrying a gun. This kid is a prime example of that inability. There are laws in most states specifically outlawing this. And the few states where it's vague should have effective laws instituted to prohibit carry by 15-year olds.

For the most part, I agree with you. But, let us go back, say, one or two centuries. Now life is easy and complicated. Back then life was hard and simple. Back then, Puberty marked the beginning of adulthood. Hardworking, honest and diligent familes were bred from the past. BOYS knew how to respect and shoot a firearm or handle a sword. When Dad was away, the oldest boy was left to fend for the family. Protect and Feed it.

Look at what we have now.

Indoctrination & Emasculation at it's finest.
 
Last edited:

Beretta-m9

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2010
Messages
110
Location
usa
When you want to have a civilized conversation, we can continue. Until then, I will not participate.

Yes op out when I provide you with your own contradicting words. Oh I can no longer participate now that you have called me out.

it's not a conversation anymore when you take everything I say and twist it to better suit your needs. Far as I am concerned I would be perfectly happy if you NEVER replied to my posts again.
 
Last edited:

Spartacus

Banned
Joined
Dec 13, 2009
Messages
1,185
Location
La Crosse, Wisconsin, USA
Yes op out when I provide you with your own contradicting words. Oh I can no longer participate now that you have called me out.

it's not a conversation anymore when you take everything I say and twist it to better suit your needs. Far as I am concerned I would be perfectly happy if you NEVER replied to my posts again.

Welcome to the club M9.

I don't have anyone here on ignore anymore but am always happy when certain idjit galoots with nothing to say and too much time on their hands just STFU.

15 YO's def should not be allowed gun ownership. Some [COMMENTS REMOVED BY ADMINISTRATOR: Personal attack] brought up the fact of how in olden days the boys hunted for the family when the dad was away or whatever, but back then they had 8 pound rifles difficultly loaded with shot and powder and not the streamlined killing machines that are available today. There is a huge difference in the mentality of youth today as well.
 

HankT

State Researcher
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
6,215
Location
Invisible Mode
. . . 15-year olds, as a group, cannot handle the responsibility of carrying a gun. This kid is a prime example of that inability. There are laws in most states specifically outlawing this. And the few states where it's vague should have effective laws instituted to prohibit carry by 15-year olds.

For the most part, I agree with you. But, let us go back, say, one or two centuries. Now life is easy and complicated. Back then life was hard and simple. Back then, Puberty marked the beginning of adulthood. Hardworking, honest and diligent familes were bred from the past. BOYS knew how to respect and shoot a firearm or handle a sword. When Dad was away, the oldest boy was left to fend for the family. Protect and Feed it.

Look at what we have now.

Indoctrination & Emasculation at it's finest.

Yah, I see your points. And, nicely, your comments highlight an implicated premise of my prior comment: it's based on our current society/culture. Western. American.

Another time and place.....it'd be different. Probably.

And don't forget that the further back in time you go (even beyond your "hard and simple" days) the more Hobbes evocation rings true: that life could be "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short." Nostalgia shouldn't cloud up an analysis of what things were really like.

You may well be right about your I & E constructs (a discussion of which would make a nice thread) but society, culture, mores, values, governments and even history move on.

Everything moves on . . .

(Heck, even E95 occasionally moves on!)
 

Interceptor_Knight

Regular Member
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
2,851
Location
Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
I can sure point out wi state law which is what matters weather you like it or not.
Wi state law
Requirements: For Firearms Possession and Carry in the state of Wisconsin
Age
Registration
License
Permit

Handguns
18 years of age
None required
None required
None Required, Conceal Carry Prohibited

Rifles
18 years of age
None required
None required
None required

Shotguns
18 years of age
None required
None required
None required
Would you like me to dig up citation numbers for you ?
Why dont you point to the spot in the us constitution that says I cannot carry concealed, in my car, in school zones so on and so forth.

What you have there is not a cite. WI Law prohibits carry of a handgun by those under 18 but allows for carry of a shotgun or rifle (long gun) by those 14 years of age and older who possess a Hunters' Safety Certificate or they are on their way to a Hunters' Safety Class and it is legally "encased". Anyone 16 years of age or older may carry without a certificate. (948.55, 948.60, 29.304)
 
Last edited:

apjonas

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2006
Messages
1,157
Location
, ,
This is why getting the facts before commenting are important.

"Prosecutors Tuesday filed criminal juvenile charges against a suspended Onalaska High School student accused of bringing a handgun and ammunition into the building Friday. The 15-year-old freshman is charged in La Crosse County Circuit Court with felony possession of a firearm in a school zone and misdemeanor possession of a dangerous weapon by a minor."

Of course we can comment only on what we know and insert multiple "if's" but I don't think a lot of posters cared to know. We have seen a maelstrom of comments defending this kid because the gun "was properly secured" in the trunk, etc., etc. Now perhaps the facts weren't known but jumping to conclusions as if the incident was cut and dried really doesn't help. I suppose this report could be wrong as well but it is the first published description with details. Now would all those who went bananas like to reconsider their opinions? Why does this matter?...One sentence: "Oh you're with Opencarry.Org, the group that supported the 15 year old carrying a piece into the schoolhouse in his backpack."
 

Beretta-m9

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2010
Messages
110
Location
usa
What you have there is not a cite. WI Law prohibits carry of a handgun by those under 18 but allows for carry of a shotgun or rifle (long gun) by those 14 years of age and older who possess a Hunters' Safety Certificate or they are on their way to a Hunters' Safety Class and it is legally "encased". Anyone 16 years of age or older may carry without a certificate. (948.55, 948.60, 29.304)

I don't recall claiming it was cite, infact I recall another post saying I can find cites if you like, again with people only commenting on what they feel like and not looking at everything and going off from everything. Thanks again for yet another person twisting my comments and posts around to suit what they would like to try and argue.
Infact its not in another post it's in the post you are claiming i say is a cite.....atleast take the time to read the entire post.
 
Last edited:

apjonas

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2006
Messages
1,157
Location
, ,
Don't Lead With Your Chin

If we are arguing technicalities, lets make sure we are being accurate. There is the Constitution, there is Law, then there are Statutes. Most that we are prosecuted for is Statutes, which isn't necessarily Law. You ever read the title of the book of Statutes? it says State Statutes, not State Law. Yes there is a difference. They are clearly defined in Blacks Law Dictionary etc.

Statutes are a subset of law. The law of a jurisdiction generally consists of statutes (legislature), case law (judges) and administrative law (regulatory agencies). BLD is a useful tool for non-lawyers and maybe 1st year law students. Any attorney who whipped out BLD to make the distinction you suggest would be laughed at. Most state supreme court reporters are called (Name of State) Reports. Try telling a judge that the decisions therein are not law because the word "law" doesn't appear in the title.
 

Interceptor_Knight

Regular Member
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
2,851
Location
Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
..... Thanks again for yet another person twisting my comments and posts around to suit what they would like to try and argue.
Infact its not in another post it's in the post you are claiming i say is a cite.....atleast take the time to read the entire post.

I can sure point out wi state law which is what matters weather you like it or not.
Wi state law
.......Would you like me to dig up citation numbers for you ?
.

You indicated that you were pointing out WI State Law and then offered to dig up a citation number.... My point is that not only did you not post actual WI law, what you posted was not correct information. If you are going to quote something as actual State Law, take the time to look it up and post the correct information...
You were responding to someone asking where it says that someone under 18 may not carry. You reply inferred that you must be 18 to carry in WI which is not factual information.

he's 15, he should not have a gun at all. I don't think he should be let off from anything, no matter if gfsz law is unconstitional or not HE'S 15. Parents should be in trouble right along side the kid. Where did he get this gun and why don't his parents know about it ?

the kid is 15, how is he not clearly breaking the law ?? I have been on the twisted side of the law more times then i care to count and likely dealt with cops far more then anyone else on this forum. I agree with alot of what you say but saying that everyone gets a "fair shake" is about as ridiculous as it gets, when and where does this occur ?

This kid did "clearly" break the law, he is 15 the law DOES say gfsz, is it constitional imo NO is it the law YES. Is he allowed to have a gun at 15 NO, should he have a gun at school or anywhere else NO.

Should he have a gun outside of school?.... Yes... A 15 year old should be able to target practice and hunt with a handgun or long gun by themselves. A 16 year old should be able to have a trunk full of ammo and encased firearms. Fortunately for the residents of WI, the State Statutes agree regarding Long Guns... It is too bad that they restrict handguns... It is too bad that School Boards are allowed to restrict their right to possess an encased firearm in their vehicle on school grounds. Good luck trying to prosecute my kid for parking off of school grounds with their rifle in their trunk....
 
Last edited:

Beretta-m9

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2010
Messages
110
Location
usa
What you have there is not a cite. WI Law prohibits carry of a handgun by those under 18 but allows for carry of a shotgun or rifle (long gun) by those 14 years of age and older who possess a Hunters' Safety Certificate or they are on their way to a Hunters' Safety Class and it is legally "encased". Anyone 16 years of age or older may carry without a certificate. (948.55, 948.60, 29.304)
Could you point that out instead of just putting in cite numbers ?
948.55

948.55 Leaving or storing a loaded firearm within the reach or easy access of a child.
948.55(1)

(1) In this section, "child" means a person who has not attained the age of 14 years.

948.55(2)

(2) Whoever recklessly stores or leaves a loaded firearm within the reach or easy access of a child is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor if all of the following occur:

948.55(2)(a)

(a) A child obtains the firearm without the lawful permission of his or her parent or guardian or the person having charge of the child.

948.55(2)(b)

(b) The child under par. (a) discharges the firearm and the discharge causes bodily harm or death to himself, herself or another.

948.55(3)

(3) Whoever recklessly stores or leaves a loaded firearm within the reach or easy access of a child is guilty of a Class C misdemeanor if all of the following occur:

948.55(3)(a)

(a) A child obtains the firearm without the lawful permission of his or her parent or guardian or the person having charge of the child.

948.55(3)(b)

(b) The child under par. (a) possesses or exhibits the firearm in a public place or in violation of s. 941.20.

948.55(4)

(4) Subsections (2) and (3) do not apply under any of the following circumstances:

948.55(4)(a)

(a) The firearm is stored or left in a securely locked box or container or in a location that a reasonable person would believe to be secure.

948.55(4)(b)

(b) The firearm is securely locked with a trigger lock.

948.55(4)(c)

(c) The firearm is left on the person's body or in such proximity to the person's body that he or she could retrieve it as easily and quickly as if carried on his or her body.

948.55(4)(d)

(d) The person is a peace officer or a member of the armed forces or national guard and the child obtains the firearm during or incidental to the performance of the person's duties. Notwithstanding s. 939.22 (22), for purposes of this paragraph, peace officer does not include a commission warden who is not a state-certified commission warden.

948.55(4)(e)

(e) The child obtains the firearm as a result of an illegal entry by any person.

948.55(4)(f)

(f) The child gains access to a loaded firearm and uses it in the lawful exercise of a privilege under s. 939.48.

948.55(4)(g)

(g) The person who stores or leaves a loaded firearm reasonably believes that a child is not likely to be present where the firearm is stored or left.

948.55(4)(h)

(h) The firearm is rendered inoperable by the removal of an essential component of the firing mechanism such as the bolt in a breech-loading firearm.

948.55(5)

(5) Subsection (2) does not apply if the bodily harm or death resulted from an accident that occurs while the child is using the firearm in accordance with s. 29.304 or 948.60 (3).


948.60

948.60 Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.
948.60(1)

(1) In this section, "dangerous weapon" means any firearm, loaded or unloaded; any electric weapon, as defined in s. 941.295 (4); metallic knuckles or knuckles of any substance which could be put to the same use with the same or similar effect as metallic knuckles; a nunchaku or any similar weapon consisting of 2 sticks of wood, plastic or metal connected at one end by a length of rope, chain, wire or leather; a cestus or similar material weighted with metal or other substance and worn on the hand; a shuriken or any similar pointed star-like object intended to injure a person when thrown; or a manrikigusari or similar length of chain having weighted ends.

948.60(2)

(2)
948.60(2)(a)

(a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.

29.304

29.304 Restrictions on hunting and use of firearms by persons under 16 years of age.
29.304(1)

(1) Persons under 12 years of age.
29.304(1)(a)

(a) Prohibition on hunting. No person under 12 years of age may hunt with a firearm or bow and arrow.

29.304(1)(b)

(b) Restrictions on possession or control of a firearm. No person under 12 years of age may have in his or her possession or control any firearm unless he or she is enrolled in the course of instruction under the hunter education program and he or she is carrying the firearm in a case and unloaded to or from that class under the supervision of his or her parent or guardian, or by a person at least 18 years of age who is designated by the parent or guardian, or is handling or operating the firearm during that class under the supervision of an instructor.

29.304(1)(c)

(c) Restrictions on obtaining hunting approval. Except as provided under par. (d), no person under 12 years of age may obtain any approval authorizing hunting.

29.304(1)(d)

(d) Restrictions on validity of certificate of accomplishment. A person under 12 years of age may obtain a certificate of accomplishment if he or she complies with the requirements of s. 29.591 (4) but that certificate is not valid for the hunting of small game until that person becomes 12 years of age.

29.304(2)

(2) Persons 12 to 14 years of age.
29.304(2)(a)

(a) Restrictions on hunting. No person 12 years of age or older but under 14 years of age may hunt unless he or she is accompanied by his or her parent or guardian, or by a person at least 18 years of age who is designated by the parent or guardian.

29.304(2)(b)

(b) Restrictions on possession or control of a firearm. No person 12 years of age or older but under 14 years of age may have in his or her possession or control any firearm unless he or she:

29.304(2)(b)1.

1. Is accompanied by his or her parent or guardian or by a person at least 18 years of age who is designated by the parent or guardian; or

29.304(2)(b)2.

2. Is enrolled in the course of instruction under the hunter education program and is carrying the firearm in a case and unloaded to or from that class or is handling or operating the firearm during that class under the supervision of an instructor.

29.304(3)

(3) Persons 14 to 16 years of age.
29.304(3)(a)

(a) Restrictions on hunting. No person 14 years of age or older but under 16 years of age may hunt unless he or she:

29.304(3)(a)1.

1. Is accompanied by his or her parent or guardian or by a person at least 18 years of age who is designated by the parent or guardian; [or]
 
Last edited:

BROKENSPROKET

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2010
Messages
2,199
Location
Trempealeau County
15 YO's def should not be allowed gun ownership.

I strongly disagree. My son owned a .22 semi-auotmatic by the time he was twelve. By the age of 14, he had a 20 gauge pump and a 50 cal muzzle loader. By 16, he had a .22-250. Technically, I own them all, I bought them all, but he hunts with them. The day he turns 18, they are his along with one of my handguns


Some pot smoking fool brought up the fact of how in olden days the boys hunted for the family when the dad was away or whatever, but back then they had 8 pound rifles difficultly loaded with shot and powder and not the streamlined killing machines that are available today.

When we moved from swords to rifles, those "8 pound rifles difficultly loaded with shot and powder" were the new streamlined killling machines.

To make a better comparison, at any time in history, look at what was commonly owned by the citiznens and compare that to the government of the time. No one owned a cannon. It is quite rare for anyone to posses anything on the very low end of what the governemt own today.

As far as calling me a 'pot smoking fool', you can think what you want. Yes, I smoked pot, back in high school. But I have not consumed in about 20 years. But because I went to Madison Hempfest, I must be stoner.

There is a huge difference in the mentality of youth today as well.

I agree, as that was my point.
 

Brass Magnet

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
2,818
Location
Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
Welcome to the club M9.

I don't have anyone here on ignore anymore but am always happy when certain idjit galoots with nothing to say and too much time on their hands just STFU.

15 YO's def should not be allowed gun ownership. Some pot smoking fool brought up the fact of how in olden days the boys hunted for the family when the dad was away or whatever, but back then they had 8 pound rifles difficultly loaded with shot and powder and not the streamlined killing machines that are available today. There is a huge difference in the mentality of youth today as well.

Not only was your reply full of personal attacks; your argument is completely asinine and not inline with the jurisprudence at all. It's the same argument that the anti's sometimes use; that we should all have muskets because that was the arm of the time. If that's the case, the government should be able to wire tap anyone they chose for any reason and free speech shouldn't be extended to the internet or TV.

Yes, the kid broke the law but the only part of your post that's relevant is the very last sentence. Of course, even that is a generality. I already had a job for 2 years and weapons availlable to me at any time when I was 15. I was responsible enough not to take a pistol to school to show off to my friends. What if an armed robber came into my home when I was alone with my little brother? Should I not have been able to defend us for fear of the law?

Now look at this situation. If its true that this kids intent was to show off this gun it's irresponsible in the very least and probably not protected behavior but what if it was different? What if he was a responsible kid, in actual fear for his life? Also, so the issue isn't clouded, let's say he wasn't on school grounds; then what?

I have a hard time blanketing a whole segment of the population with perceived irresponsibility because of the actions of a few. Same goes for us as adult gun carriers.
 

MKEgal

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
4,383
Location
in front of my computer, WI
M1Gunr said:
Title 18 U.S.C. §922(q) School Zones
A third exception, is if the person possessing the firearm has a concealed carry permit issued by the State in which the school zone is located.

Wouldn't it be cool if a state legislature wrote into law something like:
(This state) recognizes the rights of all citizens to keep and bear arms as protected by the Federal & State Constitutions. For the purposes of the requirements of the federal GFSZ Act [cite], all citizens of the United States over the age of 18 years, who have not been convicted of a violent crime punishable by a year or more in prison, are licensed by this State to carry a firearm for personal protection either openly or concealed.

The age can be adjusted depending on state laws about minors & firearms.

That's similar to what I remember Montana's (?) law reads.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top