PDA

View Full Version : The Thune amendment and GFSZ's


J.D.Allen
02-03-2011, 10:49 AM
Just read the Wiki about carry and transport in GFSZ's and noticed that per the BATFE, out of state permits recognized by reciprocity do not exempt the holder from the GFSZ restriction. Meaning that if someone has a CCW from a state that CA recognizes (I know they currently don't recognize any) they still cannot carry within 1000 ft. of any school.

Does anyone know if the Thune amendment has language to deal with this? If not this fact kind of makes the whole thing worthless in my view...

dantodd
02-03-2011, 11:05 AM
1) You'd have to get popped by doing something relatively dumb.
2) You'd have to get popped by feds because it is a federal law and not a state law
3) you'd have to REALLY piss off a prosecutor for them to file.

NightOwl
02-03-2011, 11:07 AM
What was the point of even posting that garbage? Saying "don't get caught and be a nice boy if you do, because justice depends on if the prosecutor likes you"?

dantodd
02-03-2011, 11:08 AM
What was the point of even posting that garbage? Saying "don't get caught and be a nice boy if you do, because justice depends on if the prosecutor likes you"?

sorry it didn't meet your standards.

yellowfin
02-03-2011, 11:17 AM
1) You'd have to get popped by doing something relatively dumb.
2) You'd have to get popped by feds because it is a federal law and not a state law
3) you'd have to REALLY piss off a prosecutor for them to file.

This. Most states don't have LE circling like sharks 24/7/365 just itching to bust someone specifically for being 1-999.9 ft w/in a school zone. Concealed means concealed, don't ask don't tell.

CHS
02-03-2011, 11:24 AM
Just read the Wiki about carry and transport in GFSZ's and noticed that per the BATFE, out of state permits recognized by reciprocity do not exempt the holder from the GFSZ restriction. Meaning that if someone has a CCW from a state that CA recognizes (I know they currently don't recognize any) they still cannot carry within 1000 ft. of any school.


KNOWINGLY carrying within 1000ft of a school. That's the best part about being an out-of-towner, you probably have no idea where the schools are.


Does anyone know if the Thune amendment has language to deal with this? If not this fact kind of makes the whole thing worthless in my view...

The Thune amendment is dead and nonexistent. He will have to write/submit a new one. Since it hasn't been written yet, we don't know what it says inside it.

As far as I know, the original one did not have language addressing this issue.

J.D.Allen
02-03-2011, 11:26 AM
1) You'd have to get popped by doing something relatively dumb.
2) You'd have to get popped by feds because it is a federal law and not a state law
3) you'd have to REALLY piss off a prosecutor for them to file.

I'm sure we can bet that if reciprocity becomes federal law, the CA .leg will get this one on the books ASAP, unless preempted against it by the feds...

dantodd
02-03-2011, 11:29 AM
I'm sure we can bet that if reciprocity becomes federal law, the CA .leg will get this one on the books ASAP, unless preempted against it by the feds...

Since CA law only exempts people carrying under 12050 I suspect that it would be illegal to carry in a CA GFSZ under federal reciprocity just as I believe it is currently under LEOSA.

J.D.Allen
02-03-2011, 11:31 AM
Since CA law only exempts people carrying under 12050 I suspect that it would be illegal to carry in a CA GFSZ under federal reciprocity just as I believe it is currently under LEOSA.

Really? LEO's from other states can't carry in school zones either? That surprises me.

dantodd
02-03-2011, 11:55 AM
The LEOSA act says:


926B. Carrying of concealed firearms by qualified law
enforcement officers
(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of the law of any
State or any political subdivision thereof, an individual who is
a qualified law enforcement officer and who is carrying the identification required by subsection (d) may carry a concealed firearm
that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, subject to subsection (b)

I would believe that the "any other provision of law" would include limits on where one may carry. Subsection b specifically says that LEOSA doesn't supersede limits on carry in any "State or local government property, installation, building, base,
or park."

Now, would the 1000' surrounding schools be included in the general "any other provisions" or the State or local gov't property? I am not sure but it is certainly an open question.

No one will ever be prosecuted for it so it is essentially moot but it really should be addressed in the next iteration of the Thune amendment as CA WILL go after non-cops carrying on federally mandated reciprocal licenses.

J.D.Allen
02-03-2011, 1:35 PM
it really should be addressed in the next iteration of the Thune amendment as CA WILL go after non-cops carrying on federally mandated reciprocal licenses.

My thinking exactly

Bugei
02-04-2011, 10:17 AM
"Yer honor, once I realized that I was in a school zone, I wasn't knowingly carrying in a school zone....I was leaving the school zone just as quickly as it was safe and legal to do so."

CHS
02-04-2011, 1:38 PM
"Yer honor, once I realized that I was in a school zone, I wasn't knowingly carrying in a school zone....I was leaving the school zone just as quickly as it was safe and legal to do so."

Exactly. You have to be in a school zone, and KNOW that you are in a school zone, and they have to prove that you were knowingly in a school zone as well.

You could be one block away from a school and never know it if you're outside your own neighborhood, let alone another state!

J.D.Allen
02-04-2011, 1:46 PM
Exactly. You have to be in a school zone, and KNOW that you are in a school zone, and they have to prove that you were knowingly in a school zone as well.

You could be one block away from a school and never know it if you're outside your own neighborhood, let alone another state!

I've seen "reasonably should have known" be twisted in some pretty funny ways...

N6ATF
02-04-2011, 1:50 PM
Yep, considering Theseus' case, "reasonably should have"="all civil gun owners must have had godlike knowledge of"...

fd15k
02-04-2011, 1:56 PM
I'm a bit confused. Having a Utah non-resident license, can one currently carry in a school zone in Arizona ?

CHS
02-04-2011, 1:57 PM
Yep, considering Theseus' case, "reasonably should have"="all civil gun owners must have had godlike knowledge of"...

Theseus himself said he knew he was in a school zone but believed that being on private property with the property owners permission was an exemption.

N6ATF
02-04-2011, 2:09 PM
Theseus himself said he knew he was in a school zone but believed that being on private property with the property owners permission was an exemption.

He said that on the witness stand? This claim keeps being made, but I see no proof (transcript, audio, video) provided for it.

Theseus
02-05-2011, 7:50 PM
Theseus himself said he knew he was in a school zone but believed that being on private property with the property owners permission was an exemption.

Incorrect. The closest I have ever said was that, even if I knew I was in a school zone, I was on private property as per the exemption of 626.9.

Yep, considering Theseus' case, "reasonably should have"="all civil gun owners must have had godlike knowledge of"...

And this is the exact argument they made. . . since I am a gun owner, I am required to avail myself of the knowledge of where I am and am not allowed to carry, and that includes all schools and the zones they create. By failing to do so I have not done my due diligence.

Tripper
02-05-2011, 8:05 PM
I've read it the same way, or have the same understanding.
which is as follows
If you have a CCW in Say Utah, which is recognized by Texas, you can carry in the GFSZ in Utah, and NOT in Texas. Reciprocity agreements do not apply.
I also understood it as non-resident, out of state does not apply, so even if i get a Utah out of state or a Florida out of state, I cannot ccw in those states in the GFSZ.

yes, I agree that private property is exempt, regardless of state or ccw permits

Tripper
I'm not a lawyer, I just like to argue

BigFatGuy
02-05-2011, 9:07 PM
I love the "just keep it concealed" type responses that always show up in these threads.

if we're going to take that route, why do we ever care about CCW? Just keep it concealed, and hope the cop likes you...

<facepalm>

Dirtbozz
02-05-2011, 11:12 PM
I also understood it as non-resident, out of state does not apply, so even if i get a Utah out of state or a Florida out of state, I cannot ccw in those states in the GFSZ.



I have spent some time "talking" with some of the local posters on the Utah CCW site. In Utah, a Utah non res CCW allows a holder to carry in a GFSZ in that state. It even allows open carry fully loaded (without a CCW the firearm must be "unloaded" per Utah statutes, while open carrying). Resident and non-resident permits are threated the same there. Utah is on the top of my "move too" states list :D . Well, maybe just during the Summer months :) .