-
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.
-
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.
Wisconsin Carry Inc. challenges state school zone open carry ban - lawsuit filed!
- Thread starter jrm
- Start date
Lammie
Campaign Veteran
imported post
GUN-FREE ZONES ACT: MYTH VS. REALITY
|Print|
by Gun Owners of America
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102
Springfield, VA 22151
(703)321-8585
Some advocates, both in Congress and in the Second Amendment community, have attempted to dismiss the tragic sweeping importance of new federal legislation to create expansive "gun free zones" around every American school. Regarding this sweeping ban, some have claimed that "its effect on gun owners will be minimal" and that in most cases, the new law will "have little effect."
Of course, the anti-gun zealots did not work frantically to pass this gun ban merely because they felt it would have a minimal effect. And EVEN IF the impact of this new law was minimal, gun owners should be outraged by ANY law restricting their rights. The Second Amendment states that the "right to keep and bear arms shall NOT BE INFRINGED." Those words do not leave any room for making compromises.
While some Second Amendment advocates have minimized the significance of the "gun free zones," they further discount its importance by predicting that the act will be declared unconstitutional by the courts. And yet, ironically, REPUBLICANS on the House Judiciary Committee have issued a statement just as confidently predicting that it will be upheld by the courts.
Here are some of the questions that been raised, together with the answers to those questions:
Is this a sweeping piece of legislation?
The "gun free school zone" legislation would create a virtual 1/2 mile wide "gun free" circle around every American school (or a 1,000 foot zone going in any one direction from any school) -- a zone which could possibly include home schools. Anyone carrying a gun within this "gun free zone" would be subject to five years in prison, unless he or she has fulfilled one of the government-ordained exceptions to the law -- these exemptions treating our liberties more as privileges, rather than rights. (More on this below.)
Isn't this the same as the law that was passed in 1990?
The new law is virtually word-for-word the same as the previous law. When the first disastrous "gun free zones" provision was passed in 1990, it was almost immediately challenged. The effective date was January 27, 1991. By the first months of 1992, the events triggering the Lopez case, which ultimately overturned the law in the Supreme Court, had transpired. Aggressive enforcement was held in abeyance while the constitutionality of this language wound its way through the courts.
In this sense, this law was little different from other gun bans in which enforcement was gradually tightened until the full repressive impact of the legislation had been eased into place.
Will this law pass constitutional muster?
Those who rely on the courts to save us from this vast expansion of federal gun laws by declaring the law unconstitutional are playing a very dangerous game. Federal courts have not generally been friends of the Second Amendment.
Furthermore, many analysts, including the REPUBLICAN leadership on the House Judiciary Committee, are predicting that the superficial changes made in the new act cure the constitutional defects that allowed the 1990 safe schools bill to be overturned by the courts in the Lopez decision.
Specifically, the new law requires that the gun "affects interstate and foreign commerce." This "affects commerce" language is so broad that, in one case, a farmer was held to have "affected commerce" by growing and wholly consuming his own crops, on the basis that commerce would be altered if every farmer did the same. Obviously, given this interpretation, there would be no human activity that did not "affect commerce," and the change would have absolutely no impact on the implementation of the unconstitutional 1990 law.
Does this superficial change alter the constitutionality of the unconstitutional 1990 version? Some members of the Second Amendment community believe it does not. Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee argue just as adamantly that it does.
The real answer is that no one knows. It is possible that a court will overturn this statute. BUT, if it does not, we will be stuck with one of the most repressive gun bans on the record books.
Could this law ban gun ownership by home schoolers?
The law bans guns within 1,000 feet from the "grounds" of a "public, parochial or private school..." "School" means "a school which provides elementary or secondary education, as defined under State law."
Contrary to the assertions of the House Judiciary Committee, most -- if not all -- states do recognize that home schools provide "elementary or secondary education" for the purpose of exempting those students from the mandatory attendance requirements of state law.
The act does NOT specifically look to state law with respect to the question of whether a "home school" is a "private school." But there is a substantial danger that courts will make that finding. Webster's Dictionary defines "private" to mean: "2. not open to, intended for, or controlled by the public [a private school]." Obviously, a home school is not open to, intended for, or controlled by the public. Every educated advocate interested in preserving home schools who has reviewed this problem has reached the same conclusion: there is too much of a danger that this act will be interpreted to prohibit the possession of firearms by parents who home school their kids.
In fact, Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee have privately conceded the dangers for home schools, quietly assuring other House Republicans that they would be willing to entertain a "clarification" protecting home schools. Unfortunately, these "assurances" are too-little, too-late.
Aren't there adequate exemptions to protect law-abiding gun owners?
Let's look at these "so-called" exemptions:
THE BOGUS "HUNTER EXEMPTION:" The so-called "hunter exemption" applies only when the school authorities specifically give permission for a hunter to cross their property -- and then only when the gun is unloaded. Assuming that a hunter on the way to a hunting trip would have to cross fifty school zones, that hunter would have to check with all fifty schools -- or risk being a felon if he did not qualify under another exemption.
THE "GUN OWNER REGISTRATION EXEMPTION:" The "gun free zones" law exempts CCW (Carry Concealed Weapon) holders who live in a state that requires a background check before the issuing of a permit. (This means that CCW holders that live in states like Alabama are not exempted under this provision because background checks are not mandated by state law.) What this so-called exemption does is force a citizen to register with the authorities as a gun owner before he can carry a loaded self-defense weapon in his or her car.
While many gun owners have made the choice to register themselves in order to carry concealed, many have decided to keep their names off of any government list. (In fact, the recent abuses in states like Virginia and Pennsylvania -- where newspapers are printing the names of CCW holders -- show how easily this registration information can be abused.) Before this "gun free zones" law, motorists in many states could legally transport a loaded firearm for self-defense, without getting a CCW permit.
For example, Vermont allows any citizen to carry a concealed firearm without a permit. (Vermont law only prohibits the carrying of a concealed firearm with the purpose of committing a crime.) Thus, citizens in Vermont can carry legally without jumping through any government-ordained "hoops" -- there is no registration, license fees or taxes. But now under the federal gun free zones provision, law-abiding motorists from Vermont and other states will have to beware. Those who could previously transport a loaded firearm will be stripped of their right to carry a self-defense firearm within 1,000 feet of a school (unless they qualify under another exemption).
THE USELESS "TRANSPORTATION EXEMPTION:" This extremely limited exemption would ONLY allow a motorist to transport an UNLOADED firearm in a LOCKED BOX or a LOCKED GUN RACK, assuming the motorist does not have a CCW permit as explained above. Even an UNLOADED gun kept in a glove compartment for self-protection would subject the bearer to a five-year prison sentence. Furthermore, this is true even if the person transporting the gun is an OFF-DUTY POLICE OFFICER.
Note: Citizens in states like Virginia and Colorado should beware. While these states allow motorists to carry a firearm in the passenger compartment, an obvious conflict arises now when the motorist comes within 1,000 feet (about 3 blocks) of a school. Many jurisdictions now set up road blocks to give sobriety checks and check for seat belts being worn. Police who conduct these road blocks within a school zone will now have one more "prohibited activity" to inspect for.
THE "PRIVATE PROPERTY" TRAP: While it is true that a person living within a school zone would not automatically have to relinquish his guns, it would be UNLAWFUL for him TO CARRY HIS GUN TO HIS CAR PARKED ON THE STREET OUTSIDE HIS HOUSE. Furthermore, the private property exemption only applies to "private property not part of school grounds." Home schools might not be exempted since these clearly fall within the definition of a school under U.S. Code (18 U.S.C. 921), which defines a "school" as a place which "provides elementary or secondary education as determined under state law."
Don't most states have comparable laws?
No. Many states have laws which, on their face, are much narrower than the federal law and do not create mammoth "gun-free zones." For instance, Indiana and Minnesota prohibit carrying a gun on "school property." States like Arizona, Colorado, New York and Virginia -- to name just a few -- all prohibit guns within "school grounds" or "school buildings" or at "school functions." The fact that the expansive federal law is putting pressure on states to enact equally repressive measures at the state level is a recent development which represents perhaps the most dangerous aspect of the new law. (1)
Aside from that, while a few states, such as New York and Massachusetts, have specialized in firearms repression, most have been considerably less abusive than BATF in interpreting and enforcing anti-gun statutes, even when those statutes may be overbroad. Even if the only impact of this legislation were its massive expansion of BATF authority, this would be a very bad law.
Finally, and obviously, anti-gun zealots did not work frantically to pass this piece of legislation merely because they felt it was redundant of state legislation currently on the books.
Here we go again
Gun owners should not be confused when they hear leaders in the gun community telling them that anti-gun legislation is not that bad, that such a law will "have little effect." Gun owners have heard this song and dance for almost a century.
For years, gun leaders have bargained with Congressmen, giving the wink and nod to anti-gun legislation that is "not too bad."
Consider that in 1934, the executive vice-president of one gun organization testified in Congress that, "You can be just as severe with machine guns and sawed-off shotguns as you desire, and we will go along with you." (2) With this endorsement, Congress subsequently passed the Gun Control Act of 1934.
In 1963, another executive vice-president of the same gun group told Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) that, "I do not deny you have a problem with mail-order guns, Senator. We want to do everything we can to help you. We will support any reasonable type of legislation to beat that type of business because it is unconscionable." (3) Five years later, the Gun Control Act of 1968 was enacted.
At first, each of these laws may have appeared to "have little effect." But at a minimum, the National Firearms Act of 1934 resulted in Randy Weaver losing his wife almost 60 years later, and gave the "justification" for the raid on the Davidians in Texas. The Gun Control Act of 1968 resulted in the elevation of the BATF to its current status -- an agency which required separate legislation in 1986 to curb many of its abuses.
Indeed, the gun free zones legislation must be repealed. To leave such a slow-ticking time bomb in the federal code only invites the future harassment of gun owners (at best) and future Randy Weaver-type incidents (at worst).
[line]
1. Even many of the states that have "school zone" laws are not as restrictive as the federal law. For instance, while Florida has a law prohibiting firearms within 1,000 feet of a school, it only applies "during school hours" or during the time of a "sanctioned school activity." (The federal law applies 24 hours a day.)
And while Texas contains language regarding firearms within 300 feet of a school, this zone of "300 feet" only enhances penalties for a crime committed within that area. In other words, one can legally carry a firearm within 300 feet of a school in Texas -- the law only gives an enhanced penalty for committing a crime within that same distance. The federal law, of course, extends much further than the Texas law. The federal law applies a ban on the possession of a gun (not just an enhanced penalty for the commission of a crime as in Texas), and the federal statute extends the gun free zone up to 1,000 feet from a school (not just to 300 feet as under Texas law).
2. U.S., Congress, House, National Firearms Act, Hearings, on H.R. 9066, 73d Cong., 2d Sess., 1934, p. 30, cited in Lee Kennett and James La Verne Anderson, The Gun in America: The Origins of a National Dilemma, 1975, p. 210.
3. U.S., Congress, Senate, Dodd Committee, Hearings, 1963, p. 3483, cited in The Gun in America, p. 229.
[align=center]© 2009 by Gun Owners of America
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151 - Phone: 703-321-8585 - Fax: 703-321-8408
The information contained herein may be disseminated for non-commercial purposes as long as credit is given to GOA.[/align]
GUN-FREE ZONES ACT: MYTH VS. REALITY
|Print|
by Gun Owners of America
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102
Springfield, VA 22151
(703)321-8585
Some advocates, both in Congress and in the Second Amendment community, have attempted to dismiss the tragic sweeping importance of new federal legislation to create expansive "gun free zones" around every American school. Regarding this sweeping ban, some have claimed that "its effect on gun owners will be minimal" and that in most cases, the new law will "have little effect."
Of course, the anti-gun zealots did not work frantically to pass this gun ban merely because they felt it would have a minimal effect. And EVEN IF the impact of this new law was minimal, gun owners should be outraged by ANY law restricting their rights. The Second Amendment states that the "right to keep and bear arms shall NOT BE INFRINGED." Those words do not leave any room for making compromises.
While some Second Amendment advocates have minimized the significance of the "gun free zones," they further discount its importance by predicting that the act will be declared unconstitutional by the courts. And yet, ironically, REPUBLICANS on the House Judiciary Committee have issued a statement just as confidently predicting that it will be upheld by the courts.
Here are some of the questions that been raised, together with the answers to those questions:
Is this a sweeping piece of legislation?
The "gun free school zone" legislation would create a virtual 1/2 mile wide "gun free" circle around every American school (or a 1,000 foot zone going in any one direction from any school) -- a zone which could possibly include home schools. Anyone carrying a gun within this "gun free zone" would be subject to five years in prison, unless he or she has fulfilled one of the government-ordained exceptions to the law -- these exemptions treating our liberties more as privileges, rather than rights. (More on this below.)
Isn't this the same as the law that was passed in 1990?
The new law is virtually word-for-word the same as the previous law. When the first disastrous "gun free zones" provision was passed in 1990, it was almost immediately challenged. The effective date was January 27, 1991. By the first months of 1992, the events triggering the Lopez case, which ultimately overturned the law in the Supreme Court, had transpired. Aggressive enforcement was held in abeyance while the constitutionality of this language wound its way through the courts.
In this sense, this law was little different from other gun bans in which enforcement was gradually tightened until the full repressive impact of the legislation had been eased into place.
Will this law pass constitutional muster?
Those who rely on the courts to save us from this vast expansion of federal gun laws by declaring the law unconstitutional are playing a very dangerous game. Federal courts have not generally been friends of the Second Amendment.
Furthermore, many analysts, including the REPUBLICAN leadership on the House Judiciary Committee, are predicting that the superficial changes made in the new act cure the constitutional defects that allowed the 1990 safe schools bill to be overturned by the courts in the Lopez decision.
Specifically, the new law requires that the gun "affects interstate and foreign commerce." This "affects commerce" language is so broad that, in one case, a farmer was held to have "affected commerce" by growing and wholly consuming his own crops, on the basis that commerce would be altered if every farmer did the same. Obviously, given this interpretation, there would be no human activity that did not "affect commerce," and the change would have absolutely no impact on the implementation of the unconstitutional 1990 law.
Does this superficial change alter the constitutionality of the unconstitutional 1990 version? Some members of the Second Amendment community believe it does not. Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee argue just as adamantly that it does.
The real answer is that no one knows. It is possible that a court will overturn this statute. BUT, if it does not, we will be stuck with one of the most repressive gun bans on the record books.
Could this law ban gun ownership by home schoolers?
The law bans guns within 1,000 feet from the "grounds" of a "public, parochial or private school..." "School" means "a school which provides elementary or secondary education, as defined under State law."
Contrary to the assertions of the House Judiciary Committee, most -- if not all -- states do recognize that home schools provide "elementary or secondary education" for the purpose of exempting those students from the mandatory attendance requirements of state law.
The act does NOT specifically look to state law with respect to the question of whether a "home school" is a "private school." But there is a substantial danger that courts will make that finding. Webster's Dictionary defines "private" to mean: "2. not open to, intended for, or controlled by the public [a private school]." Obviously, a home school is not open to, intended for, or controlled by the public. Every educated advocate interested in preserving home schools who has reviewed this problem has reached the same conclusion: there is too much of a danger that this act will be interpreted to prohibit the possession of firearms by parents who home school their kids.
In fact, Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee have privately conceded the dangers for home schools, quietly assuring other House Republicans that they would be willing to entertain a "clarification" protecting home schools. Unfortunately, these "assurances" are too-little, too-late.
Aren't there adequate exemptions to protect law-abiding gun owners?
Let's look at these "so-called" exemptions:
THE BOGUS "HUNTER EXEMPTION:" The so-called "hunter exemption" applies only when the school authorities specifically give permission for a hunter to cross their property -- and then only when the gun is unloaded. Assuming that a hunter on the way to a hunting trip would have to cross fifty school zones, that hunter would have to check with all fifty schools -- or risk being a felon if he did not qualify under another exemption.
THE "GUN OWNER REGISTRATION EXEMPTION:" The "gun free zones" law exempts CCW (Carry Concealed Weapon) holders who live in a state that requires a background check before the issuing of a permit. (This means that CCW holders that live in states like Alabama are not exempted under this provision because background checks are not mandated by state law.) What this so-called exemption does is force a citizen to register with the authorities as a gun owner before he can carry a loaded self-defense weapon in his or her car.
While many gun owners have made the choice to register themselves in order to carry concealed, many have decided to keep their names off of any government list. (In fact, the recent abuses in states like Virginia and Pennsylvania -- where newspapers are printing the names of CCW holders -- show how easily this registration information can be abused.) Before this "gun free zones" law, motorists in many states could legally transport a loaded firearm for self-defense, without getting a CCW permit.
For example, Vermont allows any citizen to carry a concealed firearm without a permit. (Vermont law only prohibits the carrying of a concealed firearm with the purpose of committing a crime.) Thus, citizens in Vermont can carry legally without jumping through any government-ordained "hoops" -- there is no registration, license fees or taxes. But now under the federal gun free zones provision, law-abiding motorists from Vermont and other states will have to beware. Those who could previously transport a loaded firearm will be stripped of their right to carry a self-defense firearm within 1,000 feet of a school (unless they qualify under another exemption).
THE USELESS "TRANSPORTATION EXEMPTION:" This extremely limited exemption would ONLY allow a motorist to transport an UNLOADED firearm in a LOCKED BOX or a LOCKED GUN RACK, assuming the motorist does not have a CCW permit as explained above. Even an UNLOADED gun kept in a glove compartment for self-protection would subject the bearer to a five-year prison sentence. Furthermore, this is true even if the person transporting the gun is an OFF-DUTY POLICE OFFICER.
Note: Citizens in states like Virginia and Colorado should beware. While these states allow motorists to carry a firearm in the passenger compartment, an obvious conflict arises now when the motorist comes within 1,000 feet (about 3 blocks) of a school. Many jurisdictions now set up road blocks to give sobriety checks and check for seat belts being worn. Police who conduct these road blocks within a school zone will now have one more "prohibited activity" to inspect for.
THE "PRIVATE PROPERTY" TRAP: While it is true that a person living within a school zone would not automatically have to relinquish his guns, it would be UNLAWFUL for him TO CARRY HIS GUN TO HIS CAR PARKED ON THE STREET OUTSIDE HIS HOUSE. Furthermore, the private property exemption only applies to "private property not part of school grounds." Home schools might not be exempted since these clearly fall within the definition of a school under U.S. Code (18 U.S.C. 921), which defines a "school" as a place which "provides elementary or secondary education as determined under state law."
Don't most states have comparable laws?
No. Many states have laws which, on their face, are much narrower than the federal law and do not create mammoth "gun-free zones." For instance, Indiana and Minnesota prohibit carrying a gun on "school property." States like Arizona, Colorado, New York and Virginia -- to name just a few -- all prohibit guns within "school grounds" or "school buildings" or at "school functions." The fact that the expansive federal law is putting pressure on states to enact equally repressive measures at the state level is a recent development which represents perhaps the most dangerous aspect of the new law. (1)
Aside from that, while a few states, such as New York and Massachusetts, have specialized in firearms repression, most have been considerably less abusive than BATF in interpreting and enforcing anti-gun statutes, even when those statutes may be overbroad. Even if the only impact of this legislation were its massive expansion of BATF authority, this would be a very bad law.
Finally, and obviously, anti-gun zealots did not work frantically to pass this piece of legislation merely because they felt it was redundant of state legislation currently on the books.
Here we go again
Gun owners should not be confused when they hear leaders in the gun community telling them that anti-gun legislation is not that bad, that such a law will "have little effect." Gun owners have heard this song and dance for almost a century.
For years, gun leaders have bargained with Congressmen, giving the wink and nod to anti-gun legislation that is "not too bad."
Consider that in 1934, the executive vice-president of one gun organization testified in Congress that, "You can be just as severe with machine guns and sawed-off shotguns as you desire, and we will go along with you." (2) With this endorsement, Congress subsequently passed the Gun Control Act of 1934.
In 1963, another executive vice-president of the same gun group told Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) that, "I do not deny you have a problem with mail-order guns, Senator. We want to do everything we can to help you. We will support any reasonable type of legislation to beat that type of business because it is unconscionable." (3) Five years later, the Gun Control Act of 1968 was enacted.
At first, each of these laws may have appeared to "have little effect." But at a minimum, the National Firearms Act of 1934 resulted in Randy Weaver losing his wife almost 60 years later, and gave the "justification" for the raid on the Davidians in Texas. The Gun Control Act of 1968 resulted in the elevation of the BATF to its current status -- an agency which required separate legislation in 1986 to curb many of its abuses.
Indeed, the gun free zones legislation must be repealed. To leave such a slow-ticking time bomb in the federal code only invites the future harassment of gun owners (at best) and future Randy Weaver-type incidents (at worst).
[line]
1. Even many of the states that have "school zone" laws are not as restrictive as the federal law. For instance, while Florida has a law prohibiting firearms within 1,000 feet of a school, it only applies "during school hours" or during the time of a "sanctioned school activity." (The federal law applies 24 hours a day.)
And while Texas contains language regarding firearms within 300 feet of a school, this zone of "300 feet" only enhances penalties for a crime committed within that area. In other words, one can legally carry a firearm within 300 feet of a school in Texas -- the law only gives an enhanced penalty for committing a crime within that same distance. The federal law, of course, extends much further than the Texas law. The federal law applies a ban on the possession of a gun (not just an enhanced penalty for the commission of a crime as in Texas), and the federal statute extends the gun free zone up to 1,000 feet from a school (not just to 300 feet as under Texas law).
2. U.S., Congress, House, National Firearms Act, Hearings, on H.R. 9066, 73d Cong., 2d Sess., 1934, p. 30, cited in Lee Kennett and James La Verne Anderson, The Gun in America: The Origins of a National Dilemma, 1975, p. 210.
3. U.S., Congress, Senate, Dodd Committee, Hearings, 1963, p. 3483, cited in The Gun in America, p. 229.
[align=center]© 2009 by Gun Owners of America
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151 - Phone: 703-321-8585 - Fax: 703-321-8408
The information contained herein may be disseminated for non-commercial purposes as long as credit is given to GOA.[/align]
Lammie
Campaign Veteran
imported post
The Field and Stream article and comments prove how disunited the gun owners of this country are. I presume that most of those that commented on the article are Field and Stream readers and probably hunters. They all seem to have the attitude that Frank Rock is some kind of malcontent and troublemaker and that the cops can do no wrong. They don't seem to be able to connect the dots. They can't seem to comprehend that erosion of our constitutional rights to keep and bear arms can and will affect their posession and use of firearms. They seem to view themselves as sportsmen and we as radicals.
The Field and Stream article and comments prove how disunited the gun owners of this country are. I presume that most of those that commented on the article are Field and Stream readers and probably hunters. They all seem to have the attitude that Frank Rock is some kind of malcontent and troublemaker and that the cops can do no wrong. They don't seem to be able to connect the dots. They can't seem to comprehend that erosion of our constitutional rights to keep and bear arms can and will affect their posession and use of firearms. They seem to view themselves as sportsmen and we as radicals.
Yooper
Regular Member
imported post
jrm wrote:
I know you can be prosecuted in both, and after re-reading my post, I can see where you got that I thought otherwise. The point I was trying to make, is that if you get caught, for example, in a GFSZA area, most likely it'll be by a local, county, or state agency. If you're prosecuted in a state court, the feds probably won't intervene, even though they could also charge you. BUT if WI repeals its GFSZA, and you're caught in a GFSZA area, the local law enforcement would probably arrest you, and then call the ATF to see if they want to pursue federal charges.
So while it would be a good thing to repeal the state GFSZA, people still will not be able to OC in school zones if it is infact repealed. The way I read the OP, it seemed like they were trying to make the point that you could.
jrm wrote:
I know you can be prosecuted in both, and after re-reading my post, I can see where you got that I thought otherwise. The point I was trying to make, is that if you get caught, for example, in a GFSZA area, most likely it'll be by a local, county, or state agency. If you're prosecuted in a state court, the feds probably won't intervene, even though they could also charge you. BUT if WI repeals its GFSZA, and you're caught in a GFSZA area, the local law enforcement would probably arrest you, and then call the ATF to see if they want to pursue federal charges.
So while it would be a good thing to repeal the state GFSZA, people still will not be able to OC in school zones if it is infact repealed. The way I read the OP, it seemed like they were trying to make the point that you could.
Wisconsin Carry Inc.
Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
imported post
As tocomments about the FEDERAL GFSZA, this was taken from this site: http://wise.fau.edu/~tunick/courses/conlaw/gunlaw.htmlwhich is a copy of the actual congressional record.
As tocomments about the FEDERAL GFSZA, this was taken from this site: http://wise.fau.edu/~tunick/courses/conlaw/gunlaw.htmlwhich is a copy of the actual congressional record.
Mike
Site Co-Founder
imported post
Wisconsin Carry, Inc. wrote:
Wisconsin Carry, Inc. wrote:
And one federal judge in Wisconsin already ruled that this "fix" did not overcome Lopez. I'm sure you Wisconin experts have that case cite handy, no?
Venator
Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
imported post
protias wrote:
protias wrote:
I agree, man it's worse than I thought. "Just do whatever the police tell you to do, if you are innocent you have nothing to worry about". Ya right.
Gray Peterson
Founder's Club Member - Moderator
imported post
Mike wrote:
If the 14th amendment doesn't allow Wisconsin to have a 1000 foot school zone ban, the 2nd amendment wouldn't allow the US government to have the same thing.
You do know that case law effects one or the other, right?
Mike wrote:
If the 14th amendment doesn't allow Wisconsin to have a 1000 foot school zone ban, the 2nd amendment wouldn't allow the US government to have the same thing.
You do know that case law effects one or the other, right?
Mike
Site Co-Founder
imported post
Gray Peterson wrote:
I think though that post-Heller attacks on at least the "zone" part of 922(q) might have a chabnce especially with the best facts - an one angle to look at is bringing the challenege in Wiscosnin or Illinois where no person can get a carry permit from that state even if they try - that makes no sense and discriminates against thesefolks based merely on their state of residence - not a very rational distinction granding a federal criminal statute.
Gray Peterson wrote:
Well, Gray, that's not the law now - the law is in the 7th Cir. and apparently all circuits that have passed on the matter that a commerce clause attack on 922(q) does not work cause they are all still going along with the notion that if an article travels in commerce then federal criminal statutes can penalize primary conduct with that article - the district court case I refered to above was overruled on that issue by the 7th Cir., sorry for misleading anyone on that.
I think though that post-Heller attacks on at least the "zone" part of 922(q) might have a chabnce especially with the best facts - an one angle to look at is bringing the challenege in Wiscosnin or Illinois where no person can get a carry permit from that state even if they try - that makes no sense and discriminates against thesefolks based merely on their state of residence - not a very rational distinction granding a federal criminal statute.
Lammie
Campaign Veteran
imported post
Here are a few court cases some of you may find interesting reading. They address the gun-free school zone law to various degrees.
U.S. v. Lewis 100 F.3d 49 (7th cir.)
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9252087713678519772&q=100+F.3d+49&hl=en&as_sdt=2002
U.S. v. Bell 70 F.3d 495 (7th cir.)
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9672879491720551567&q=70+F.3d+495&hl=en&as_sdt=2002
Gillespie v. City of Indianapolis 185 F.3d 693
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9672879491720551567&q=70+F.3d+495&hl=en&as_sdt=2002
Gillespie District case:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9999702712731688850&q=185+F.3d+693&hl=en&as_sdt=2002
Here are a few court cases some of you may find interesting reading. They address the gun-free school zone law to various degrees.
U.S. v. Lewis 100 F.3d 49 (7th cir.)
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9252087713678519772&q=100+F.3d+49&hl=en&as_sdt=2002
U.S. v. Bell 70 F.3d 495 (7th cir.)
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9672879491720551567&q=70+F.3d+495&hl=en&as_sdt=2002
Gillespie v. City of Indianapolis 185 F.3d 693
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9672879491720551567&q=70+F.3d+495&hl=en&as_sdt=2002
Gillespie District case:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9999702712731688850&q=185+F.3d+693&hl=en&as_sdt=2002
Gray Peterson
Founder's Club Member - Moderator
imported post
Mike wrote:
Mike wrote:
7th Circuit ruled on that issue pre-Heller on 10th amendment grounds and "Commerce Clause". Attacking the Wisconsin statute is better in that instead of facing the FedGov's lawyers in DC, you're attacking a state which has financial problems, which is a good thing. JB Van Hollen is the one fighting on behalf of the state. We'll see what half-assed defense they'll offer.
bigdaddy1
Regular Member
imported post
Back to the top,
Any progress report?
Back to the top,
Any progress report?
Wisconsin Carry Inc.
Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
imported post
On January 8, 2010 Wisconsin Carry, Inc. filed the lawsuit. The defendants are given time to respond to the suit. Once they respond, then there will be motions on both sides, then depositions, etc. This will take some time to work itself through the system.
The reason for the lawsuit is because the Wisconsin citizens have waited almost TWELVE (12) YEARS (since Article 1, Section 25 was enacted) for our legislature to take action. The legislature has shown that they are both unable and unwilling to correct the erroneous prohibition.
A copy of this lawsuit can be viewed here: http://www.wisconsincarry.org/pdf/GFSZ_Complaint.pdf
We began a membership drive to fund this lawsuit and establish a network of in-state freedom-minded residents to carry out our mission across Wisconsin.
We have had fantastic response from our initial email to our email-list of around 1000 people, but funding this lawsuit will require YOUR support as well.
If you haven't joined Wisconsin Carry, please consider doing so. Annual membership is $15. "Membership" is very important for several reasons. Your membership in Wisconsin Carry will afford you:
-Charter membership in an organization that has demonstrated it will take marked action to support and defend your rights in Wisconsin.
-Access to our semi-annual conference call/web chat where you can gain information directly from the Wisconsin Carry board and also share your thoughts and ideas.
-The opportunity to be a part of Wisconsin Carry as one of our county-level coordinators which will be selected from members who would like to be active in our efforts.
"Membership" is extremely important because in addition to providing critical funding for this and future lawsuits, it allows us to have a vetted network of freedom-minded gun owners in Wisconsin who have demonstrated their support of our cause. With this screened group we can share non-public information with. Something we wouldn't be able to do with a public "anyone can come and go" forum.
Wisconsin Carry does not disparage the efforts of any other gun rights groups in Wisconsin. We have been contacted by other Wisconsin gun-rights groups who have expressed their support of our efforts.
Please take this opportunity to become a charter member of an organization that will be a formidable force on behalf of law-abiding gun-owners in Wisconsin for generations to come. Membership numbers are assigned sequentially. Join now and your low member number will demonstrate to your children and grandchildren that you became a part of the fight to preserve freedom in Wisconsin when the fight was new.
Permanent membership numbers for general members began at #1000. Members making initial contributions of greater than $100 will receive a permanent membership number between #5 and #999 based on order of receipt of your membership contribution.
Lastly, Wisconsin Carry was formed to take substantive action to protect and advice YOUR gun rights in Wisconsin. We chose to do more than talk about advancing gun rights but rather "do" something. Filing a federal lawsuit was not cheap, nor did it come without months of preparation and significant time and money investment from those involved. This investment was made, and lawsuit filed before we ever asked for a penny of support from anyone. We took action first and asked for nothing more than $15 of support from others to support what we have done, not what we promised we would do.
To join Wisconsin Carry please visit our website:
http://www.wisconsincarry.org/
where you can find a printable membership application:
http://www.wisconsincarry.org/pdf/MembershipApplication.pdf
You can also join Wisconsin Carry instantly using our on-line application:
http://www.wisconsincarry.org/secure/php/application.php
Please help us spread the word to all your family, friends, relatives, and coworkers.
Hubert Hoffman, Vice President
Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
http://www.WisconsinCarry.org
Hubert@WisconsinCarry.org
On January 8, 2010 Wisconsin Carry, Inc. filed the lawsuit. The defendants are given time to respond to the suit. Once they respond, then there will be motions on both sides, then depositions, etc. This will take some time to work itself through the system.
The reason for the lawsuit is because the Wisconsin citizens have waited almost TWELVE (12) YEARS (since Article 1, Section 25 was enacted) for our legislature to take action. The legislature has shown that they are both unable and unwilling to correct the erroneous prohibition.
A copy of this lawsuit can be viewed here: http://www.wisconsincarry.org/pdf/GFSZ_Complaint.pdf
We began a membership drive to fund this lawsuit and establish a network of in-state freedom-minded residents to carry out our mission across Wisconsin.
We have had fantastic response from our initial email to our email-list of around 1000 people, but funding this lawsuit will require YOUR support as well.
If you haven't joined Wisconsin Carry, please consider doing so. Annual membership is $15. "Membership" is very important for several reasons. Your membership in Wisconsin Carry will afford you:
-Charter membership in an organization that has demonstrated it will take marked action to support and defend your rights in Wisconsin.
-Access to our semi-annual conference call/web chat where you can gain information directly from the Wisconsin Carry board and also share your thoughts and ideas.
-The opportunity to be a part of Wisconsin Carry as one of our county-level coordinators which will be selected from members who would like to be active in our efforts.
"Membership" is extremely important because in addition to providing critical funding for this and future lawsuits, it allows us to have a vetted network of freedom-minded gun owners in Wisconsin who have demonstrated their support of our cause. With this screened group we can share non-public information with. Something we wouldn't be able to do with a public "anyone can come and go" forum.
Wisconsin Carry does not disparage the efforts of any other gun rights groups in Wisconsin. We have been contacted by other Wisconsin gun-rights groups who have expressed their support of our efforts.
Please take this opportunity to become a charter member of an organization that will be a formidable force on behalf of law-abiding gun-owners in Wisconsin for generations to come. Membership numbers are assigned sequentially. Join now and your low member number will demonstrate to your children and grandchildren that you became a part of the fight to preserve freedom in Wisconsin when the fight was new.
Permanent membership numbers for general members began at #1000. Members making initial contributions of greater than $100 will receive a permanent membership number between #5 and #999 based on order of receipt of your membership contribution.
Lastly, Wisconsin Carry was formed to take substantive action to protect and advice YOUR gun rights in Wisconsin. We chose to do more than talk about advancing gun rights but rather "do" something. Filing a federal lawsuit was not cheap, nor did it come without months of preparation and significant time and money investment from those involved. This investment was made, and lawsuit filed before we ever asked for a penny of support from anyone. We took action first and asked for nothing more than $15 of support from others to support what we have done, not what we promised we would do.
To join Wisconsin Carry please visit our website:
http://www.wisconsincarry.org/
where you can find a printable membership application:
http://www.wisconsincarry.org/pdf/MembershipApplication.pdf
You can also join Wisconsin Carry instantly using our on-line application:
http://www.wisconsincarry.org/secure/php/application.php
Please help us spread the word to all your family, friends, relatives, and coworkers.
Hubert Hoffman, Vice President
Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
http://www.WisconsinCarry.org
Hubert@WisconsinCarry.org
imported post
I know this is a little off-topic, but can someone explain this more clearly for me:
However, it adds a requirement that the prosecutor prove as part of each prosecution that the gun moved in or affected interstate or foreign commerce.
I was reading this the other night - would it not be reasonable to state that any gun in the U.S. that was not manufactured, bought and possessed in the same state would have "moved in" interstate or foreign commerce?
I know this is a little off-topic, but can someone explain this more clearly for me:
However, it adds a requirement that the prosecutor prove as part of each prosecution that the gun moved in or affected interstate or foreign commerce.
I was reading this the other night - would it not be reasonable to state that any gun in the U.S. that was not manufactured, bought and possessed in the same state would have "moved in" interstate or foreign commerce?
darthmord
Regular Member
imported post
CarryOpen wrote:
Quite reasonableto assume that.
Thing is, the Feds are claiming that any firearm, regardless of origin & destination is moving in or affected interstate / foreign commerce.
Thus you could buy a firearm in WI that was made in WI and the Federal Government assumes it can control what happens with that firearm because of the interstate commerce clause.
Hence the movement behind the Firearms Freedom Acts going on in several states. As is, the BATFE is telling two states to stuff it with their FFAs.
CarryOpen wrote:
Quite reasonableto assume that.
Thing is, the Feds are claiming that any firearm, regardless of origin & destination is moving in or affected interstate / foreign commerce.
Thus you could buy a firearm in WI that was made in WI and the Federal Government assumes it can control what happens with that firearm because of the interstate commerce clause.
Hence the movement behind the Firearms Freedom Acts going on in several states. As is, the BATFE is telling two states to stuff it with their FFAs.
demnogis
Regular Member
imported post
This is great news! Once we get incorporation through the 9th circuit hopefully our resident legal 2A team will work to repeal CAs own GFSZ!
This is great news! Once we get incorporation through the 9th circuit hopefully our resident legal 2A team will work to repeal CAs own GFSZ!
imported post
I've been a little behind in getting documents posted from this case. I'm attaching the link again to let folks know there have been additional answers and a motion to dismiss filed.
http://georgiacarry.com/wci_wiscon/
I've been a little behind in getting documents posted from this case. I'm attaching the link again to let folks know there have been additional answers and a motion to dismiss filed.
http://georgiacarry.com/wci_wiscon/
blaze
New member
imported post
jrm wrote:
jrm wrote:
Thank you for the extremely fine job you are doing for us.