PDA

View Full Version : federal gun-free zones hypothetical question


ChaparralCommando
02-24-2009, 2:11 PM
So if one has a gun that was manufactured and purchased in their own state and the state has no laws prohibiting guns in school zones, is one theoretically clear to have that gun in a federally-defined school zone, according to exception 2A of the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1996?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun-Free_School_Zones_Act_of_1990

Decoligny
02-24-2009, 3:10 PM
So if one has a gun that was manufactured and purchased in their own state and the state has no laws prohibiting guns in school zones, is one theoretically clear to have that gun in a federally-defined school zone, according to exception 2A of the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1996?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun-Free_School_Zones_Act_of_1990

The way the Feds would probably interpret it currently would be as follows:

1. If all the parts for the gun were made in their own state.
2. If all the metals for the gun were mined in their own state.
3. If all the machines used to make the guns were made in their own state.
4. If all the metals for the machines used to make the guns were mined in their own state.
5. If all the machines used to mine the ore for making the above were made in their own state.

The Feds want to apply the Commerce Clause as broadly as humanly possible.

Cypren
02-24-2009, 3:38 PM
1. If all the parts for the gun were made in their own state.
2. If all the metals for the gun were mined in their own state.
3. If all the machines used to make the guns were made in their own state.
4. If all the metals for the machines used to make the guns were mined in their own state.
5. If all the machines used to mine the ore for making the above were made in their own state.
6. If all the people involved and all of their ancestors back to the beginning of recorded history were born in their own state.

Fixed that for you. :D

berto
02-24-2009, 6:42 PM
Roads

XDshooter
02-24-2009, 8:17 PM
The main problem is that California also has a Gun Free School Zone law.

So none of that would even matter.

ChaparralCommando
02-24-2009, 8:24 PM
The main problem is that California also has a Gun Free School Zone law.

So none of that would even matter.

Yeah, I know; that is why it is a hypothetical question. Just something I ran across while writing an article for my university newspaper on states' rights. There are states that do not, no?

CA_Libertarian
02-25-2009, 11:00 AM
The main problem is that California also has a Gun Free School Zone law.

So none of that would even matter.

CA law only applies to short guns, federal law applies to all guns. So, if you want to carry a long gun slung over your shoulder, it does matter.

As for the OP: the federal school zone law has been struck down once already, and the re-passed it with additional wording, basically saying, "the Commerce Clause applies, even though the court already said it doesn't."

IMO, this law would be very easy to win on appeal, if they even try to enforce it in the first place. Most likely, they will wait for a tragic school shooting to get a defendant that they have a chance of winning against.

hoffmang
02-25-2009, 11:56 AM
Though the novel idea of non interstate guns is going to be tried by Montana and the like, I don't think the fact that the gun hasn't moved in interstate commerce would come into the analysis of the gun free school bill. The commerce clause argument the government would make is that interference with education (for which there is a national market) would interfere with commerce.

I don't like the logic - I'm just saying what the current state of the jurisprudence is.

-Gene

DDT
02-25-2009, 1:21 PM
Can you imagine how much our legal system would change if the Interstate Commerce Clause was reined in?