Implement what plan? You don't know what you're talking about. This is Arizona subforum, not Tennessee where YOU had Police crawling up YOUR a$$.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Gun Free School Zone
- Thread starter Herdo
- Start date
Implement what plan? You don't know what you're talking about. This is Arizona subforum, not Tennessee where YOU had Police crawling up YOUR a$$.
kwikrnu
Banned
The federal law won't disappear overnight. It is against forum rules to break a law. The only way for an unlicensed person to carry within a school zone is with a non-firearm like a cap and ball revolver. There are some exceptions, but they are not many.
So, how will the azcdl let the unlicensed carry today, tomorrow, or next week?
TOF
Regular Member
The Feds don't allow Federal Law to be enforced in Arizona (re. our illegal immigration fiasco).
Neither Arizona or the Feds have paid much attention to the gun free zone law listed in the OP's posting during the 70 years I have lived here.
AZCDL and our legislators have been doing a real good job of clarifying and restoring our gun RIGHTS and I expect when appropriate will address the ridiculous gun free school zone question. At the moment it is not a real problem IMHO.
Kalifornia, Tennesee and other locals may not fare quite as well.
Neither Arizona or the Feds have paid much attention to the gun free zone law listed in the OP's posting during the 70 years I have lived here.
AZCDL and our legislators have been doing a real good job of clarifying and restoring our gun RIGHTS and I expect when appropriate will address the ridiculous gun free school zone question. At the moment it is not a real problem IMHO.
Kalifornia, Tennesee and other locals may not fare quite as well.
azcdlfred
Regular Member
I'm confused by the message. AzCDL doesn't "let" people carry. We have no power or authority in that regard. We're a grassoroots group that lobbies for improvements in Arizona law.
School zone carry is a priority. We are working with legislators on getting this addressed in the upcoming session.
Stay tuned,
Fred
kwikrnu
Banned
I'm sure you're aware that people have been prosecuted for carry within a GFSZ. The AZCDL has no power to prohibit law enforcement from enforcing the current law which prohibits the carry of a firearm inside a GFSZ. They may be working on a lawsuit, I don't know. However, in the mean time how may a person w/o a permit carry a weapon for self-defense within a GFSZ? I recomend the carry of a black powder cap and ball pistol. They are not defined as a firearm under Federal law. As long as AZ doesn't have a State law prohibiting the carry of a cap and ball pistol in a GFSZ you should be okay.
rickc1962
Regular Member
Fred! arguing with Kwik is like wrestling with a pig in the mud, the pig likes it!!
JesseL
Regular Member
Got a citation for that? One subsequent to US vs Lopez? How about one in AZ?
There are tons of laws on the books that are both odious and never enforced. I don't worry about all of them.
My own city regularly has events that feature firearms and are well within the 1000' GFSZ limit. Lots of people armed to the teeth, plenty of police, lots of smiles, and zero arrests.
kwikrnu
Banned
I've taken this info from a few posts made to this site. You could have looked up the infomation easily.
Although the Supreme Court has not ruled on the enforceability of the
revised Federal GFSZA; the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has. They
specifically reviewed the changes made by Congress following the SCOTUS
decision in United States v Lopez and they found the amended version to
be constitutional in 2005.
See United States v Dorsey.
In 2007, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
actually upheld a conviction for a gun that a woman had stored in her
home. Her home just happened to be within 1000 feet of a school, and it
happened to be excluded from the "private property" exception because
it was part of a housing project.
See United States v Belen Nieves-Castano
http://www.lexisone.com/lx1/caselaw/...=y&l1loc=FCLOW
Here are links to a few more federal convictions that were upheld under
the current Federal GFSZA. I realize they're not dealing with the
Wisconsin law, but I'm sure they would be useful if you ever get a
chance to challenge the Federal GFSZA.
United States v Danks (1999)
United States v Tait (2000)
United States v Haywood (2003)
United States v Smith (2005)
United States v Weekes (2007)
United States v Benally (2007)
United States v Cruz-Rodriguez (2008)
____________
In addition I have a letter from the BATF that confirms that your NON-RESIDENT CCW PERMIT does not exempt you from the GFSZ unless you are in the state that issued it.
So if you have a UTAH non-resident CCW permit, you are NOT exempted from the GFSZ when you CCW in any other state than Utah.
There is significant pressure NOT to make this information public because it would upset the applecart, but most people don't know they are at risk of being convicted of a felony for the GFSZ statute when they carry with their non-resident permits in states other than that which issued the permit.
Of course I'm sure all CCW permit holders trust the government to use its discretion and not prosecute you for something like that (sarcasm)
_______________
Here is some more information passed along to me from my out of state contact. Links to each case:
Here are the updated links to the Federal GFSZA Convictions. I have been
unable to locate the United States v Benally Case Again.
United States v Danks
(1999)http://openjurist.org/221/f3d/1037/u...v-jordan-danks
United States v Tait (2000) (Attempted prosecution of an Alabama permit
holder) http://openjurist.org/202/f3d/1320/united-states-v-tait
United States v Haywood
(2003)http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-3rd-circuit/1270681.html
United States v Dorsey (2005) (Upheld the revised law as constitutional)
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1067767.html
United States v Smith (2005)
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-1st-circuit/1379992.html 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)
http://openjurist.org/480/f3d/597/un...-nieves-castao 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)http://www.lexisone.com/lx1/caselaw/...=y&l1loc=FCLOW
United States v Benally (2007) I have been unable to find an active link
to this case.
United States v Cruz-Rodriguez (2008)
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-1st-circuit/1166100.html
Arizona folks please don't believe any advice from that jerk from Tennessee who had his state carry permit REVOKED. He pi$$ed off authorities in his area some time ago and he's been whining about it since, plus he has ZERO credibility on the Tennessee subforum.
kwikrnu
Banned
IANAL and have not claimed to be. Am I wrong about the carry of cap and ball revolvers in school zones? Am I wrong about people being prosecuted for the carry of firearms in school zones? The question was asked and I answered.
My permit was suspended, but I do have a florida license to carry and will soon be in possession of utah and arizona permits. I even have a FFL. If I were to drive to AZ I may legally carry openly or concealed with no permit.
Last edited:
ccwinstructor
Centurion
Thanks for the input.
I believe your citations are correct. I think the best way to persue this is to have the stupid federal law repealed. No one thought we would get carry in the national parks, but we did. There are some hard chargers in the new Republican house. It would not hurt to try and remove this odious statute.
I believe your citations are correct. I think the best way to persue this is to have the stupid federal law repealed. No one thought we would get carry in the national parks, but we did. There are some hard chargers in the new Republican house. It would not hurt to try and remove this odious statute.
It's federal crime to rob a bank isn't it? Do the local cops just call the FBI when a bank is robbed?
Dahwg
Regular Member
It is also against state law to rob a bank, therefore local LE enforces the law and FBI gets involved as well. But I think since the feds have such a problem with state laws that run concurrent with federal laws, Arizona should not outlaw robbing a bank since it is already covered by a federal law. Perhaps the administration will sue us if we enforce that law? hmm... oh wait, that would only happen if the bank robbers were illegal aliens- we should check the legal status of all bank robbers to determine whether we will have local LE deal with the crime or not... wait... can't do that either, it's profiling. Well I guess the feds will have to handle all bank robberies in AZ with out assistance from local LE from now on.
JoeSparky
Centurion
Since the officers may be able to OBSERVE someone within the 1000 foot "DEFENSE FREE ZONE" from a greater distance that the 1000 feet from the school like 1001 feet from... May I suggest changing this part to 2000 feet from the school!?Don't go the Montana route, where all residents are considered licensed in a blanket manner.
Some licenses in some states have been rejected in court because the state didn't conduct an individual background check before handing out the license. Doing things Montana style doesn't conduct a background check on anybody, and courts have already decided that no background check = no exemption.
Many forget that the GFSZ law also forbids ANY discharge of a firearm within the zone and THERE IS NO EXEMPTION FOR PERMIT HOLDERS, only security personnel and peace officers IN PERFORMANCE OF DUTY. So while having a permit, or somehow else being allowed to carry in the zone if you have to actually use the weapon you're in violation. Even an off-duty cop firing in self-defense could get hooked up for this.
Doing the blanket licensure thing will not hold up on federal court nor will it address the potential of being prosecuted for discharging the legally possessed firearm in self-defense.
Here's how I'd completely neuter the law from the state level:
-Make it a state felony for any state or federal law enforcement officer to go within 1000 feet of a school while performing official duties if the officer intends to enforce the GFSZ law.
-Automatically disbar any prosecutor attempting to prosecute violation of GFSZ.
-State in state law that public k-12 schools are not considered schools for the purposes of the GFSZ law or any other federal weapons law.
-Consider any person in the State of Arizona who legally has in their possession a deadly weapon a peace officer performing official crime prevention duties.
-Add 'attempting to enforce or prosecute Federal Gun Free Schools Act or any similar act' to the list of crimes citizens can use deadly force to prevent (ARS 13-411)
-Make it a state crime to investigate the death of any law enforcement officer or prosecutor who at the time of their death was enforcing or prosecuting the GFSZ law.
I know my list is extreme, but I'm sure you could pull some good ideas from it
Last edited:
Jim Macklin
New member
If the US District Attorney was appointed by obama or holder, expect no reasonable acceptance of a state law exception.
Always assume the worst is possible outcome. Only a license issued by the state where the school is located. There is no reciprocity. Your CCH may be accepted in all 37 states that have reciprocity, but it is not covered by the exception in 18 922(q).
The law must be changed, contact your Federal legislators and ask/demand that reciprocity is a fact that must be recognized under 922(q). Also, self-defense must be allowed within a school zone. As the law now reads, a teacher may be allowed to have a gun if the school approves, but they can't legally fire on a killer.
A national reciprocity law could include all these changes and pave the way to repeal of the whole law in a few years.
azcdlfred
Regular Member
Adding to the recent post by John Macklin.
Arizona's Constitutional Carry does NOT apply to the federal school zone law. What Constitutional Carry does is remove the state "weapons misconduct" law that required a permit for adults to carry discreetly in the state of Arizona.
Federal law still requires a CCW permit to be within 1,000 feet of a school zone, regardless of how you carry your firearm. Arizona does not have a corresponding state law, but there are state laws restricting guns on school property.
There is also nothing to stop the feds from enforcing the federal school zone law in Arizona.
Fred
utbagpiper
Banned
Fred,
When possible, I'd be most interested in any remedies that might stand up to federal scrutiny. Some time back Utah removed the 1000' zone from our State GFSZ, but that ridiculous "buffer" remains in federal law. I'd love some ideas or even model legislation that might provide protections for non-permit holders, or holders of non-Utah permits who visit our State.
Feel free to PM me if you'd prefer.
Thank you
Charles
azcdlfred
Regular Member
Charles, if possible, can you remind me about later this year, like around June? You can email me directly at treasurer@AzCDL.org.
At the moment, all my attention is on the current legislative session. Our #1 priority is doing everything we can legislatively to weaken the inevitable Bloomberg backed ballot measure to institute Gun Owner Registration in Arizona.
For everyone reading this post, citizen initiated ballot measures are part of the Arizona Constitution. They bypass the legislative process. They cannot be stopped or overturned once passed. Just like what happened in Washington, and what is happening in Nevada, Bloomberg will finance a ballot measure in Arizona for mandatory background checks on private firearm transfers. For the scheme to work a gun owner registration system will be set up.
Again, this WILL happen in Arizona. There will not be any white knight riding in to save our butts. National groups are going to make only token resistance. It's up to us.
Fred
The Trickster
Regular Member
You have my support. I am an AzCDL member and I will fight tooth and nail to stop any and all attacks on the RTKBA. Correspondence will be sent, financial support will be provided, etc. I just hope enough people can unglue themselves from their technological distractions and join us.