Gun Free Zones, Federal Question.

[nicki]

My understanding is that if you have a CCW and you are in another state, then you are in violation of the federal gun free zone even though a resident of that state has an exemption.

Could attacking the Fed gun free zone in another state that is within the 9th circuit come back and undo the California gun free zone since they are substantially similar?

I figure if we got in front of Judge Kozinski we might get a favorable ruling.

Nicki

[tabrisnet]

I know that strict-scrutiny is not a silver uhmmmm bullet... but would strict scrutiny possibly serve to eliminate some of the teeth of the GFSZ Act?

I recently (today) decided to look over the map of a) where I live b) where my parents live... and we're both screwed.

[Crom]

I think it is premature to attack the GFSZ act (fed or State) until a right-to-carry case has been decided by the SCOTUS. Although amending the fed statute to correct the out-of-state licensed carriers would be prudent by congress.

[Dr Rockso]

Unless someone with a valid out-of-state CCW gets arrested for being inside a school zone in a state that has reciprocity with the issuing state I don't see how you'd ever get it in front of a judge. The exemption is sort of ambiguous, and we all know that the Federal GFSZ is basically unenforced in most states (open carriers, CCWers in AZ/AK/VT, unlocked gun racks in pickup trucks, etc).

(ii) if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located or a political subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or political subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license;

They're not directly licensed by the state in which the school exists, but the license is recognized by that state so it's implicit that they have permission to carry. But since "license" can be both a noun, referring to the physical object, and a verb, referring to the authorization it entails, I would argue that someone with a non-resident Florida CCW, by example, is "licensed" (i.e. permitted) to carry by the state of Georgia.

[bussda]

The federal GFSZ was struck down in U.S. vs. Lopez. See http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/in...e_School_Zones. California enacted a separate law so we still have it.

[Dr Rockso]

The federal GFSZ was struck down in U.S. vs. Lopez. See http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/in...e_School_Zones. California enacted a separate law so we still have it.

That's Federal GFSZ of 1990, post-Lopez it was reenacted as the Federal Gun Free School Zones Act of 1995...they added some "interstate commerce" language and the courts seem to have accepted it.

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.

Of course their position is that every firearm affects interstate commerce, so it's a distinction without a difference.

[CaliB&R]

bussda, US vs Lopez knocked it down, but it was brought back. They added a part about "interstate commerce", so its back among the living.

Title 18 U.S.C Part 1 Chapter 44 Section 922(q)(2)(A) states 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.

Dr Rockso beat me to it

[Window_Seat]

This will likely take a much longer time to "fix" than any carry case that goes to SCOTUS, but it would be a VERY good idea for someone to begin going after 922(q)(2)(A) ASAP.

As far as the regulation itself, I feel it's days are numbered because the "Interstate" clause of the statute might have a really tough time being enforced, and for a person like me... Who regularly travels in Interstate Commerce as well as Intrastate Commerce, it's going to be difficult, and probably not worth it for a federal agent to swoop in (unless TSA decides to start making another name for themselves) and start arresting LACs who are licensed by their home states, or in states that have written reciprocity agreements.

McDonald & Heller might make it that much tougher because of this:

McDonald v. Chicago, PP 39-40:

We made it clear in Hellerin sensitive places such as schools

So, in bold is what it states, and there is nothing in the opinion that relates to a boundary that covers a zone as being part of the longstanding regulations covering sensitive places. It should be difficult for any court to try and justify why a place within an imaginary line or circle which can't be drawn by a jury correctly can pass constitutional muster.

Erik.

[Window_Seat]

Look what I found:

Utah Code 41-1a-102. Definitions.
As used in this chapter:Manufactured Housing and Safety Standards Act (HUD Code).
(33) (a) "Motor vehicle" means a self-propelled vehicle intended primarily for use and operation on the highways.
(b) "Motor vehicle" does not include an off-highway vehicle.
(34) (b) A person who engages in intrastate business within this state and operates in that business any motor vehicle, trailer, or semitrailer in this state or who, even though engaging in interstate commerce, maintains any vehicle in this state as the home station of that vehicle is considered a resident of this state, insofar as that vehicle is concerned in administering this chapter.
(67) "Vehicle" includes a motor vehicle, trailer, semitrailer, off-highway vehicle, manufactured home, and mobile home.

This is Utah, so it just barely scratches the surface, but other states might have this also, and would this not be a good reason to go ahead and get your permit in other states as well?

Erik.