Lammie
Campaign Veteran
imported post
There is no way to rationalize the school zone law. It was made by buffoons in a state of fear and panic instead of adults under calm and reason. It is so full of loop holes and vague language that it would probably never survive a court test. Unfortunately the penalty is so severe for those that cherish their gun rights that it is unlikely that it will be intentionaly tested. I feel our only hope is to find some legislative representative that is pro-gun and has the guts to ask the Attorney General for an opinion on which portions are constitutional and enforceable.
Here is an example of how utterly stupid it is. If a LEO is off duty he can not enter a school zone with a loaded firearm in order to assist someone in grave danger. 948.605(2)(6). He also can not discharge his firearm in a school zone if he is off duty. 948.605(3)(b)(4). The key phrase is official capacity. However, a civilian firearms instructor that may be in the process of conducting a firearms training course can come to assistance. 948.605(2)(4). He can also fire the firearm 948.605(3)(b)(2).
Of course it is unlikely that an off duty LEO would ever be charged with a crime for giving assistance by use of a firearm but by literal interpretation he could be charged with a felony.
On the issue of sidewalks. I have also done a lot of reseach on the subject. I share shotguns opinion that sidewalks in front of private residences and business are private property that has been designated for public use. I also suspect the same for streets although I'm not comfortable with saying so just yet. I have noticed on my property abstract that it shows a 33 foot easment for a town road. 33 feet would be to the center of the road, the maintenance of which is contracted with the township and paid for through property taxes.
Doug listed some annotations from supreme court opinions. I have no confidence in the state Supreme Court. It sits too close to the lap of Doyle. It can't seem to remember what decisions it makes from one case to another. Probably because it is more concerned with making the proper political decision than the proper legal opinion. An example is that the Court laid down three conditions that define concealement in both Kieth and Hamdan. One of those conditions is that the firearm must be within reach. Yet the Court found Fry guilty of carrying a concealed weapon because it was locked in a glove compartment. What can be more out of reach than in a locked glove compartment?
There is no way to rationalize the school zone law. It was made by buffoons in a state of fear and panic instead of adults under calm and reason. It is so full of loop holes and vague language that it would probably never survive a court test. Unfortunately the penalty is so severe for those that cherish their gun rights that it is unlikely that it will be intentionaly tested. I feel our only hope is to find some legislative representative that is pro-gun and has the guts to ask the Attorney General for an opinion on which portions are constitutional and enforceable.
Here is an example of how utterly stupid it is. If a LEO is off duty he can not enter a school zone with a loaded firearm in order to assist someone in grave danger. 948.605(2)(6). He also can not discharge his firearm in a school zone if he is off duty. 948.605(3)(b)(4). The key phrase is official capacity. However, a civilian firearms instructor that may be in the process of conducting a firearms training course can come to assistance. 948.605(2)(4). He can also fire the firearm 948.605(3)(b)(2).
Of course it is unlikely that an off duty LEO would ever be charged with a crime for giving assistance by use of a firearm but by literal interpretation he could be charged with a felony.
On the issue of sidewalks. I have also done a lot of reseach on the subject. I share shotguns opinion that sidewalks in front of private residences and business are private property that has been designated for public use. I also suspect the same for streets although I'm not comfortable with saying so just yet. I have noticed on my property abstract that it shows a 33 foot easment for a town road. 33 feet would be to the center of the road, the maintenance of which is contracted with the township and paid for through property taxes.
Doug listed some annotations from supreme court opinions. I have no confidence in the state Supreme Court. It sits too close to the lap of Doyle. It can't seem to remember what decisions it makes from one case to another. Probably because it is more concerned with making the proper political decision than the proper legal opinion. An example is that the Court laid down three conditions that define concealement in both Kieth and Hamdan. One of those conditions is that the firearm must be within reach. Yet the Court found Fry guilty of carrying a concealed weapon because it was locked in a glove compartment. What can be more out of reach than in a locked glove compartment?