• 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.

McDonald ruling and GFSZ

oc4ever

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2009
Messages
280
Location
, ,
Since the Supreme Court has ruled the right to bear arms within private residences in McDonald Vs. Chicago, I wonder how this will effect those poor OCer's/LOCer's that want to possess and carry on their own property that have been technically unable to do so because they live within 1000 feet of a school. You think the GFSZ laws will be limited to the school properties only, as they should be?
 

bigtoe416

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jun 3, 2008
Messages
1,748
Location
Oregon
You've always been able to carry within your residence, even if you live within 1000' of a school. McDonald doesn't change that. We may be able to make gains if you are outside of your house, which is within 1000' of a school, but still on your property.

I do believe that the 1000' perimeter around a school will be struck down as unconstitutional. I can see the courts saying that a school is a sensitive location, although I certainly disagree with that based on the number of school shootings that have occurred. Teachers, staff, and parents should be able to defend themselves when on school property just the same as anybody else.
 

oc4ever

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2009
Messages
280
Location
, ,
Bigtoe, that is what I meant. Outside of your house, yet still on your property. Should have been more clear.
 

merle

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2009
Messages
109
Location
Tahoe, Nevada, USA
Private property is still private property - even if it is open to the public. I'm pretty sure this is what Theseus (from calguns) got convicted for.

To be sure, you need to restrict public access to your property (fence, shrubs, etc.) in order to eliminate the "public access" portion thereby rendering private property w/ no public access (like a home w/ a door or a yard w/ a gate).
 

Eventhorizon

New member
Joined
Jan 20, 2010
Messages
18
Location
San Luis Obispo, California, USA
public place vs private property is still somewhat grey. The following link has a lot of good information along with some case law that has defined what is public and private in specific circumstances. I think that to be safe, you should at least have a 3.5 foot fence with a gate(open or closed/ locked or unlocked) that provides challenge to public access.
http://santabarbaralawyer.blogspot.com/2008/02/public-place.html
 

campfire

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2010
Messages
54
Location
KC Metro, Kansas, USA
public place vs private property is still somewhat grey. The following link has a lot of good information along with some case law that has defined what is public and private in specific circumstances. I think that to be safe, you should at least have a 3.5 foot fence with a gate(open or closed/ locked or unlocked) that provides challenge to public access.
http://santabarbaralawyer.blogspot.com/2008/02/public-place.html
Yikes! The federal law doesn't say anything about "private property" only with a fence! Why can't the law be interpreted the way it was written, especially when it is in such clear and plain language? You know, sort of like how the Bill of Rights should mean, uh, everyone has those rights? and on and on. Geesh.

Federal GFSZ law excerpt:
(2)
(A) It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.
(B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the possession of a firearm— (i) on private property not part of school grounds;

Sorry to gripe...it's just frustrating when it should be so clear.
 

1245A Defender

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2009
Messages
4,364
Location
north mason county, Washington, USA
home made?

Yikes! The federal law doesn't say anything about "private property" only with a fence! Why can't the law be interpreted the way it was written, especially when it is in such clear and plain language? You know, sort of like how the Bill of Rights should mean, uh, everyone has those rights? and on and on. Geesh.

Federal GFSZ law excerpt:
(2)
(A) It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.
(B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the possession of a firearm— (i) on private property not part of school grounds;


Sorry to gripe...it's just frustrating when it should be so clear.
if a guy manufactured his own gun from raw materials, so that it didnt affect interstate commerce,
would he then be exempt from the 1000 ft GFSZ?
 
M

McX

Guest
SCOTUS didn't help much for us in wisconsin. WisconsinCarry is our best bet. maybe you guys should form one? i thought i heard you guys out there lost oc, did arnold sign it?
 

bigtoe416

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jun 3, 2008
Messages
1,748
Location
Oregon
SCOTUS didn't help much for us in wisconsin. WisconsinCarry is our best bet. maybe you guys should form one? i thought i heard you guys out there lost oc, did arnold sign it?
It still has to get through a senate committee, and then out of the senate before our governor gets to decide to sign it.
 

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,939
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
if a guy manufactured his own gun from raw materials, so that it didnt affect interstate commerce,
would he then be exempt from the 1000 ft GFSZ?
I don't think GFSZs are constitutional. We know that they are not for Federal Law (Lopez) but we do not yet have case law for States. I think that MacDonald drew three bright lines to help guide us in determining what is and is not constitutional. One of the three bright lines is schools, not school zones. Therefore I think states have residual police power to prohibit carry at schools, but not in zones outside of the schools.

IMHO the answer to your question is now being litigated in Montana v. Holder - The Montana Firearms Freedom Act case. If Montana wins then the answer is yes. If Montana loses on the merits then the answer is no. If Montana loses on technicalities ( US is pushing for summary judgement based upon lack of standing) the there is no answer.

I thought that Kali had her own GFSZ Act, which would make the intrastate v. interstate gun issue irrelevant.
 

demnogis

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2008
Messages
912
Location
Orange County, California, USA
McX, the bill to outlaw openly carrying unloaded handguns in public has not cleared the legislature, hence it has not been signed.

Unlike other states, there's far too many "fruits" and "nuts" here for a cohesive group to gain muster. Couple that with the fact that the "other" CA firearms community does not like, nor want, unlicensed open carry, loaded or unloaded. They've got more money and lawyers on their side, currently.

SCOTUS didn't help much for us in wisconsin. WisconsinCarry is our best bet. maybe you guys should form one? i thought i heard you guys out there lost oc, did arnold sign it?
 

Attachments

Top