PDA

View Full Version : Federal Gun Free School Zone After Lopez


Tim Chang
10-11-2011, 6:05 PM
Does anyone know if there have been convictions of this crime AFTER the Lopez decision ?

Just a thought here.....The law on the books says in part "(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."

Lets say in California you are open carrying a shotgun within the a school zone and the local police show up. After some questioning they determine that no state crime has occured. They let the suspect go but send a report to federal authorities.

The feds decide to pursue the matter a few weeks later and you are arrested.

How could the feds possibly PROVE that the rifle you had "moved in or otherwise affected commerce" since there would be no way for them to even know WHAT firearm you had.

Thoughts ?

gunsandrockets
10-11-2011, 6:08 PM
Good question.

I myself have wondered how many people were prosecuted under the Federal AW ban, and if any of those convicted were still in prison even after the law sunsets.

mdimeo
10-11-2011, 7:49 PM
Does anyone know if there have been convictions of this crime AFTER the Lopez decision ?

Wikipedia says:
Following the Lopez decision, Congress rewrote the Gun Free School Zones Act with the necessary interstate-commerce "hook" used in other Federal Gun Laws. The revised Federal Gun Free School Zones Act is currently in effect and has been upheld by several United States Appellate Courts. None of the convictions occurring under the revised law have been overturned as a result of the Lopez decision.

mdimeo
10-11-2011, 7:51 PM
How could the feds possibly PROVE that the rifle you had "moved in or otherwise affected commerce" since there would be no way for them to even know WHAT firearm you had.
Thoughts ?

Well, proof is just what you can convince a jury. It's pretty convincing when a cop says "it was a Mossberg 500, which are well known to be manufactured in North Haven, CT". Then you go to jail. Then you appeal to SCOTUS, and SCOTUS refuses to grant cert. Then you stay in jail.

-m@

dad
10-11-2011, 7:57 PM
What is the Calif penal code for school zone/guns?
Thanks in advance!

Purple K
10-11-2011, 8:06 PM
Calif. GFSZ law is PC 626.9

Librarian
10-11-2011, 8:50 PM
And see the wiki on GFSZ -- http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Gun_Free_School_Zones

notme92069
10-12-2011, 8:00 AM
Well, proof is just what you can convince a jury. It's pretty convincing when a cop says "it was a Mossberg 500, which are well known to be manufactured in North Haven, CT". Then you go to jail. Then you appeal to SCOTUS, and SCOTUS refuses to grant cert. Then you stay in jail.

-m@

And if it's the OLL I built in CA from an 80% lower and I have engraved as being built in CA?

crackerman
10-12-2011, 8:16 AM
And if it's the OLL I built in CA from an 80% lower and I have engraved as being built in CA?

Was that lower forged in CA, with aluminum mined in California, with an upper and other parts made only in CA?

The commerce clause hook is probably the most abused part of the Constitution. It has been used by lots of Congresses over the years.

Liberty1
10-12-2011, 8:23 AM
Was that lower forged in CA, with aluminum mined in California, with an upper and other parts made only in California?.

Doesn't matter. By not participating in interstate commerce he is affecting interstate commerce and therefore a subject of the feds and not a free man. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

BlindRacer
10-12-2011, 8:32 AM
Doesn't matter. By not participating in interstate commerce he is affecting interstate commerce and therefore a subject of the feds and not a free man. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

And THERE'S there hook.

AngryPossum
10-12-2011, 8:37 AM
Little different then your scenario.....but, How about if I live in a school zone or pass through one on my way to the range? If I was pulled over for some random reason (tail light out, etc) and I happened to be in a school zone on my way to the range could I be in trouble for all my gear in the trunk?

Curtis
10-12-2011, 8:38 AM
This section does not apply to .... a person holding a valid license
to carry the firearm

It is my understanding is that this law is a concern for states that constitutional carry, no permits are issued.

crackerman
10-12-2011, 8:42 AM
Little different then your scenario.....but, How about if I live in a school zone or pass through one on my way to the range? If I was pulled over for some random reason (tail light out, etc) and I happened to be in a school zone on my way to the range could I be in trouble for all my gear in the trunk?

The GFSZ state that if you have the guns in a locked container then you are okay (trunk with no pass through being a locked container).

Now IANAL but I am guessing if you get pulled over in front of a school, and the cops performs an e-check, then pops you for having an unlocked gun, you are in entrapment territory and you get a judgment for lots of money to go buy more guns.

crackerman
10-12-2011, 8:42 AM
It is my understanding is that this law is a concern for states that constitutional carry, no permits are issued.

Which is why AZ and AK still issue permits

nrandell
10-12-2011, 8:44 AM
The whole "has moved in, or been affected by interstate commerce" thing is what the feds put in their BS laws nowadays for 10th amendment reasons.

They have a magic wish granting genie called the commerce clause that allows them to regulate anything they want even if it's not specifically mentioned in the constitution.

Liberty1
10-12-2011, 8:45 AM
It is my understanding is that this law is a concern for states that constitutional carry, no permits are issued.

It's a concern for anyone who is not exempt including peace officers carrying under LEOSA or persons claiming LTC exemptions through resiprocity while out of state.

7x57
10-12-2011, 8:56 AM
They have a magic wish granting genie called the commerce clause that allows them to regulate anything they want even if it's not specifically mentioned in the constitution.

It makes me happy every time someone uses this phrase. Spread the meme. :)

7x57

mdimeo
10-12-2011, 11:33 AM
And if it's the OLL I built in CA from an 80% lower and I have engraved as being built in CA?

I'm not aware of any aluminum mines in California. Commerce clause strikes again!
Hope you machined your own upper, smelted the steel for your barrel, and hammered the lower parts out of locally grown organic free-range sheet metal while you were at it.

notme92069
10-12-2011, 11:44 AM
I'm not aware of any aluminum mines in California. Commerce clause strikes again!
Hope you machined your own upper, smelted the steel for your barrel, and hammered the lower parts out of locally grown organic free-range sheet metal while you were at it.

Since the legal language is "Interstate" what if the receiver and all parts came from China?

Barabas
10-12-2011, 11:51 AM
Since the legal language is "Interstate" what if the receiver and all parts came from China?

Ssshh! Someone might connect the dots to another commerce issue that is currently being pursued.

ETA: Although China isn't a good example, maybe Canada?

cmaynes
10-12-2011, 12:25 PM
not to derail the conversation- but I have to ask- how would you feel if you saw someone carrying a long gun around your neighborhood?

I am about as pro-gun rights as anyone, and I live inside the GFZ with a middle school on one side of me, and a high school on the other- I have kids that go to both schools too-

That being said- I would be pretty f*&%ing concerned if I saw someone I didnt know strolling around with a long gun on my street-

I guess this is why I STRONGLY favor CCW- because one can be armed discreetly- but given the kookiness of this present time- I think my concerns are not irrational.

My oldest daughter just went through the possible active shooter scare at CSUN a few weeks ago, and she has been on two campuses with bomb threats in the last 3 years. I think we need to take these things into consideration when framing the gun rights landscape in California (and other places as well).

notme92069
10-12-2011, 12:29 PM
not to derail the conversation- but I have to ask- how would you feel if you saw someone carrying a long gun around your neighborhood?

I am about as pro-gun rights as anyone, and I live inside the GFZ with a middle school on one side of me, and a high school on the other- I have kids that go to both schools too-

That being said- I would be pretty f*&%ing concerned if I saw someone I didnt know strolling around with a long gun on my street-

I guess this is why I STRONGLY favor CCW- because one can be armed discreetly- but given the kookiness of this present time- I think my concerns are not irrational.

My oldest daughter just went through the possible active shooter scare at CSUN a few weeks ago, and she has been on two campuses with bomb threats in the last 3 years. I think we need to take these things into consideration when framing the gun rights landscape in California (and other places as well).

To be honest, I would be checking out his long gun to make sure mine was WAY better than his. and BIGGER. Because it is. Honestly.

Mulay El Raisuli
10-13-2011, 4:25 AM
not to derail the conversation- but I have to ask- how would you feel if you saw someone carrying a long gun around your neighborhood?

I am about as pro-gun rights as anyone, and I live inside the GFZ with a middle school on one side of me, and a high school on the other- I have kids that go to both schools too-

That being said- I would be pretty f*&%ing concerned if I saw someone I didnt know strolling around with a long gun on my street-

I guess this is why I STRONGLY favor CCW- because one can be armed discreetly- but given the kookiness of this present time- I think my concerns are not irrational.

My oldest daughter just went through the possible active shooter scare at CSUN a few weeks ago, and she has been on two campuses with bomb threats in the last 3 years. I think we need to take these things into consideration when framing the gun rights landscape in California (and other places as well).


Would you feel the same way if someone was walking about with a handgun on their hip? I.E., if unlicensed Open Carry is restored as the palladium of the Right, would you spend your days in a state of concern?


Since the legal language is "Interstate" what if the receiver and all parts came from China?


No good. Crossing the Federal border is also crossing the state border.


The Raisuli

PsychGuy274
10-13-2011, 4:40 AM
Does anyone know if there have been convictions of this crime AFTER the Lopez decision ?

Just a thought here.....The law on the books says in part "(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."

Lets say in California you are open carrying a shotgun within the a school zone and the local police show up. After some questioning they determine that no state crime has occured. They let the suspect go but send a report to federal authorities.

The feds decide to pursue the matter a few weeks later and you are arrested.

How could the feds possibly PROVE that the rifle you had "moved in or otherwise affected commerce" since there would be no way for them to even know WHAT firearm you had.

Thoughts ?

This is how they twisted it. If I carry a Ruger (made in Arizona) in a GFSZ I'm affecting interstate commerce by having a pistol from another state and not spending my money in CA.

cmaynes
10-13-2011, 6:24 AM
Would you feel the same way if someone was walking about with a handgun on their hip? I.E., if unlicensed Open Carry is restored as the palladium of the Right, would you spend your days in a state of concern?




I would probably not feel as concerned. A long gun has a different purpose. I would frankly feel zero concern with CCW.

notme92069
10-13-2011, 6:27 AM
No good. Crossing the Federal border is also crossing the state border.


The Raisuli

Would you care to quote the statute or case law on that?

johndoe2150
10-13-2011, 7:34 AM
Since the legal language is "Interstate" what if the receiver and all parts came from China?

Still dosn't matter. By not participating in interstate commerce you are affecting it so its covered by the interstate commerce clause. You could mine all the metal and work it all on your property, and you would still be affecting it.

So buying from China means your influencing interstate commerce by not buying through it so you still can be nailed for it

Librarian
10-13-2011, 11:32 AM
Would you care to quote the statute or case law on that?

Geography.

With the single exception of sailing up the Potomac and docking in Washington, D. C., every edge of the United States national territory is also occupied by a state border.

Pick, for example, the US-Mexico border. By the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo of 1848 and the Gadsden Purchase, the boundary between US and Mexico was established; there's a boundary commission that manages disputes over rivers changing course and water usage.

New Mexico Territory was organized in 1850; Arizona Territory came into existence in 1863; the southern boundary of each territory was part of that boundary established by the treaty/purchase, and on admission to the union in 1912, became the state boundary.

You can see the bill describing New Mexico Territory, HR 752, on line here - http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llhb&fileName=034/llhb034.db&recNum=2149 ; it subdivides existing national territory.

Joewy
10-13-2011, 11:42 AM
It is my understanding is that this law is a concern for states that constitutional carry, no permits are issued.

In Wyoming we ignore this law. It is impossible to go into ANY town and not pass within 1000 ft of a school.
So we just ignore it. Stupid law.

crackerman
10-13-2011, 12:30 PM
Geography.

With the single exception of sailing up the Potomac and docking in Washington, D. C., every edge of the United States national territory is also occupied by a state border.



And even that doesn't work since you have to cross into state waters of Delaware or Virgina to get to DC.

command_liner
10-13-2011, 5:19 PM
The analysis bears repeating. It is both painfully obvious and constantly forgotten.

1) In the US system of laws, the most recent text is the governing text. Old law
does not take precedent over new law.

2) The commerce clause, which is used as the lynchpin of the GFSZ, is in the
main body of the Constitution. The Second Amendment is more recent law.

3)The commerce clause, being old law, is superseded by the 2nd. Weapons within
the purview of the 2nd cannot be governed by old law. Wickcard may govern wheat
growth, but it cannot govern firearms within the purview of the 2nd.

4) This point has never been litigated, but such litigation is certainly on the horizon.
This is a loosing issue for the anti-RKBA crowd. There are other issues to litigate first.

GrizzlyGuy
10-13-2011, 5:25 PM
Does anyone know if there have been convictions of this crime AFTER the Lopez decision ?

Yes there have. See here (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=4243653&postcount=12) for a partial list.

JeepsRcool
10-13-2011, 9:32 PM
Since the legal language is "Interstate" what if the receiver and all parts came from China?

You didn't buy the parts in America, so you affected interstate commerce, duh :facepalm:

camsoup
10-14-2011, 12:05 AM
None of the parts themselves are a firearm, and an 80% lower is not a firearm.

It does not need a serial number or background check and only becomes a firearm once the milling process is complete. If all the parts were sourced into CA, along with an 80% lower, then assembled into a firearm as long as it never leaves the state, the firearm has not crossed state lines or affected interstate or foreign commerce...correct?

Kid Stanislaus
10-14-2011, 4:57 AM
The whole "has moved in, or been affected by interstate commerce" thing is what the feds put in their BS laws nowadays for 10th amendment reasons.
They have a magic wish granting genie called the commerce clause that allows them to regulate anything they want even if it's not specifically mentioned in the constitution.

This is EXACTLY why we need to get control of both houses of Congress so we can amend the constitution to reign in the Commerce Clause.

Mulay El Raisuli
10-14-2011, 5:18 AM
I would probably not feel as concerned. A long gun has a different purpose. I would frankly feel zero concern with CCW.


Not really. I've seen several pictures of people riding bicycles, with rifles slung over their backs, on the way to the range. This in Switzerland. I used to ride my motorcycle to the range (and other places) with a rifle in the scabbard. Pictures of others traveling armed on motorcycles are here (somewhere) on the forum also. And of course, it used to be quite common to see long guns in shotgun racks in pickups. None of that really bothers me.


Would you care to quote the statute or case law on that?


Unfortunately, I cannot remember the case law on this. But, the obviousness of this has been recognized by the courts. See also Librarians response.


The analysis bears repeating. It is both painfully obvious and constantly forgotten.

1) In the US system of laws, the most recent text is the governing text. Old law
does not take precedent over new law.

2) The commerce clause, which is used as the lynchpin of the GFSZ, is in the
main body of the Constitution. The Second Amendment is more recent law.

3)The commerce clause, being old law, is superseded by the 2nd. Weapons within
the purview of the 2nd cannot be governed by old law. Wickcard may govern wheat
growth, but it cannot govern firearms within the purview of the 2nd.

4) This point has never been litigated, but such litigation is certainly on the horizon.
This is a loosing issue for the anti-RKBA crowd. There are other issues to litigate first.


Now, THAT'S an interesting approach. I can see that argument carrying the day.


The Raisuli

edlegault
10-14-2011, 5:42 AM
Way too many people get uptight at the sight of another person in possession of a firearm.

Geez, when I was in high school I used to transport my target rifle (.22) on the school bus and leave it unattended in the corner of my home room. No big deal. And we had a rifle range in the basement under the school gym. In college I kept firearms in my dorm room closet (legally).

How did we get to the place we are in now, where everyone assumes (LEOs included) that a person with a gun is a bad thing?

camsoup
10-14-2011, 7:41 AM
I would probably not feel as concerned. A long gun has a different purpose. I would frankly feel zero concern with CCW.

So its OK for anyone, whether they can legally conceal a gun or not to have a concealed gun near your child's school, simply because you don't know they have one in the first place??

Just because you do not see gun, doesn't mean someone isn't carrying one near a school.

notme92069
10-14-2011, 8:22 AM
So its OK for anyone, whether they can legally conceal a gun or not to have a concealed gun near your child's school, simply because you don't know they have one in the first place??

Just because you do not see gun, doesn't mean someone isn't carrying one near a school.

You sound like the Brady Bunch. LTC holders have been vetted more extensively that someone that is open carrying. As past evens have shown, gun restrictions don't eliminate violence at schools. I have absolutely no problem with LTC holders carrying at a school. In fact, I think it's safer. If they are not legally able to carry a gun, every law in the land isn't going to stop them.

camsoup
10-14-2011, 8:43 AM
You sound like the Brady Bunch. LTC holders have been vetted more extensively that someone that is open carrying. As past evens have shown, gun restrictions don't eliminate violence at schools. I have absolutely no problem with LTC holders carrying at a school. In fact, I think it's safer. If they are not legally able to carry a gun, every law in the land isn't going to stop them.

The point I was trying to make was that if someone walks past a school with an unloaded long gun, walks past a school with a CCW and a concealed gun, or walks past the school carrying an illegally concealed gun (unloaded or loaded) with no permit, there is still a gun near the school. Just because he is a gun owner and "feels" better about someone carrying a gun near the school that he cant see doesn't mean there is any less reason why a law abiding citizen cant carry a long gun past the school. The mere sight of a gun doesn't make that gun anymore dangerous than a gun kept out of sight.

notme92069
10-14-2011, 9:45 AM
The point I was trying to make was that if someone walks past a school with an unloaded long gun, walks past a school with a CCW and a concealed gun, or walks past the school carrying an illegally concealed gun (unloaded or loaded) with no permit, there is still a gun near the school. Just because he is a gun owner and "feels" better about someone carrying a gun near the school that he cant see doesn't mean there is any less reason why a law abiding citizen cant carry a long gun past the school. The mere sight of a gun doesn't make that gun anymore dangerous than a gun kept out of sight.

Then I agree with your point!

bubbapug1
10-14-2011, 6:16 PM
Exceptions include California Concealed Weapons licenses, and transport through school zones unloaded in locked cases. Note that CCW licenses recognized under reciprocity laws do not provide exemption

So...carrying a unloaded locked pistol in a case locked in the trunk of your car on school grounds is perfectly legal correct?

Rumline
10-14-2011, 6:23 PM
The mere sight of a gun doesn't make that gun anymore dangerous than a gun kept out of sight.
Sure it does. If someone sees it, the anti's will start to hyperventilate and fall all over themselves in panic. Someone could break a hip in the ensuing chaos!

BigDogatPlay
10-14-2011, 10:15 PM
Was that lower forged in CA, with aluminum mined in California, with an upper and other parts made only in CA?

The commerce clause hook is probably the most abused part of the Constitution. It has been used by lots of Congresses over the years.

While you are right about the commerce clause, you are parsing the sourcing of the hypothetical rifle too deeply.

An 80% lower is not a firearm until it's finished. If it became a firearm in California and never went into interstate commerce as a firearm then it follows that it would not apply to the statute's requirements.

Of course that opinion is based in common sense, which we know that government very seldom consults when making decisions about how deeply to roger a citizen.

mdimeo
10-17-2011, 5:06 PM
Since the legal language is "Interstate" what if the receiver and all parts came from China?

Congress has the power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes". So that's no help.

Anyway, you're trying to find a constitutional loophole around an unconstitutional federal power grab. This strikes me as an unproductive enterprise.

Wherryj
10-20-2011, 7:43 AM
Well, proof is just what you can convince a jury. It's pretty convincing when a cop says "it was a Mossberg 500, which are well known to be manufactured in North Haven, CT". Then you go to jail. Then you appeal to SCOTUS, and SCOTUS refuses to grant cert. Then you stay in jail.

-m@

That's why we here in CA should only carry CA manufacturers if there is a chance of inadvertently entering a gun free victim disarmament zone. "Well, the firearm was Franklin Armory HSC-15, well known to be manufactured in Morgan Hill, CA....'er, I'll have to make up a reason that this affects interstate commerce...give me a minute..."

Unfortunately you probably STILL go to jail.

sreiter
11-21-2011, 8:10 PM
Doesn't matter. By not participating in interstate commerce he is affecting interstate commerce and therefore a subject of the feds and not a free man. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

But how could they prove the wheat he would have bought wouldn't have been grown, and sold locally only?

Free country my butt

This means the Gov can force you to buy anything. After all, if you don't buy a brand new car every year, you're effecting interstate commerce

kcbrown
11-21-2011, 10:58 PM
I'm in Phoenix right now, and thanks to this asinine GFSZ law, I cannot lawfully (and therefore will not) carry my firearm in a state that has Constitutional carry. Needless to say, this really pisses me off. :mad:

The federal GFSZ law must be struck down. It is plainly Unconstitutional.

VegasND
11-22-2011, 4:20 AM
You may be the only person to ever observe that law while in Arizona.;)
I'm in Phoenix right now, and thanks to this asinine GFSZ law, I cannot lawfully (and therefore will not) carry my firearm in a state that has Constitutional carry. Needless to say, this really pisses me off. :mad:

The federal GFSZ law must be struck down. It is plainly Unconstitutional.

keneva
11-22-2011, 5:18 AM
Ditto notme92069.

wash
11-22-2011, 8:18 AM
I think another way around the commerce clause is to make an AR lower in every state where they are legal.

Then when they say "making this in California means that it wasn't made in another state", you can say "actually no, I made them in all the other states where legal so it has no effect on interstate commerce".

The only problem is it gets expensive, about 48 lowers I think and then a safe deposit box in every state, the travel expenses and finding a shop to machine your lower in every state.

Then you've got to get popped for federal GFSZ.

It would be hilarious but I can't afford it.